Thread by @NeedhiBhalla

watching now: videocast.nih.gov/livew.asp?live…

https://twitter.com/NIHDirector/status/1365335956195311625

increase in success rates for AA/B applicants from ~22% to ~43% for K grants and from ~12% to ~23% for R01 grants from 2013-2020

"still very small number of investigators"
"incremental improvement"

now reporting on suggestions of group convened to discuss racism in science, mentions shift in directness of language about racism and anti-Blackness in the group

emphasis on personal AND institutional support of Black scientists

"Why emphasis on Black scientists?"

questioner is concerned about emphasis on singularity of Black scientists

Wilson mentions meeting took place after George Floyd murder and that lent urgency to conversations, with focus on anti-Blackness in science. Points out that suggestions can be extended to many groups that experience bias in science

I understand the inclination to ask this question but support for underrep'd scientists is not pie; improving the experience and support for Black scientists will likely help many non-white scientists and this frames the question in a way that white supremacy prefers, IMO

question about the pipeline: "Do we know that this support is going to the right populations?"

answer: "proxies we use are imprecise." mentions that it's a consequence of legal constraints

people still really like the pipeline argument

all members of group accept report

aaaaand just lost the live feed

it's back! UNITE = 5 committees to strengthen diversity, equity and inclusions

each committee's cochair will present (slightly out of order)

U group: perform a broad, systemic evaluation to id elements and barriers that perpetuate structural racism in the NIH

one focus: listening to accounts and experiences to generate quantitative and qualitative data to promote action, including anonymous submissions, town halls and a RFI on practical and effective ways to improve racial and ethnic inclusivity

N group: address long standing health disparities and issues related to Minority Health at NIH

one strategy: develop methodology to assess NIH portfolio

GREAT idea: use Common Fund Initiative to raise profile of research into health disparities and enhancing health equity

proposed FOA in March 2021

1st FOA: open to all investigators

2nd FOA: focused on increasing competitiveness of MSIs

future FOA in Winter 2022 focused on interventions to address health disparities

I: Improving NIH culture and structure to promote diversity, equity and inclusivity throughout NIH workforce

Focused on:
culture change
recruitment
retention/advancement
accountability

racial disparities in make up of NIH workforce when disaggregated into scientific, health and research, infrastructure and NIH leadership

AA/B underrep'd in scientific and leadership areas at expense of white and Asian people

E: Extramural Research Ecosystem: Changing policy, culture and structure

evaluating NIH extramural policies that perpetuate systemic inequities

appreciate the point that some viewers are data points in presented data about funding success rates of AA/B applicants

framework to guide efforts:
career pathways and ongoing barriers
limited resources/capacities ar HBCUs and MSIs
interventions that shift environments and cultures to promote equity
processes and procedures at NIH that maintain inequity (peer review, interactions of staff, etc)

- "It's time for us to listen:" RFI to get stakeholder input and listening sessions
- expand existing grant funding data (available 2-3 weeks)
- possible programs (assess interactions with NIH staff and members of underrep'd groups and focus on HBCUs and MSIs)

T: transparency, communication and accountability assessment of all UNITE efforts with internal and external stakeholders

appreciate the emphasis on evaluation of programs to see what is and what is not working

webpage that will be a central portal for anti-racism policies and efforts at NIH in effort to increase transparency

Summary of UNITE recs

appreciate the people who participated in this important work

great question: What does success look like?

Answers: This is a marathon addressing complex issue

more granular answer: Each committee has a tracking document that the T committee will use to hold the other committees accountable. Sense of success might shift with time

Such a missed opportunity for an overarching vision.

"K-12 education"
"pipeline problem"

*drink*

THANK YOU to the person pointing out that we need to move away from the pipeline metaphor to a pathway metaphor

is nobody going to point out that there are already Black grad students, post-docs and PIs who need this support and cultural shift?

another question: how will the ICs coordinate given the pan-NIH presentation?

question: how are trans-NIH groups that addresses specific racial and ethnic populations integrated with UNITE committees?

answer: they are members of the UNITE committees to coordinate them

question raising concern about whether HBCUs can be brought up to quality of R1s

great answer tho: partnerships are fruitful, useful and important when it's clear you want a true partnership

also beautiful reframing by someone else of the question to capacity building

literally yelled out loud in my office at this question

great question about financial stability as a barrier to retaining Black and other under-rep'd students

great suggestion: expansion of loan repayment or forgiveness programs

Common Fund Concept Discussion: Transformative Research to Address Health Disparities and Achieve Health Equity

again, I want to say I think this is SUCH a great idea

"same storm, different boats"

boats = differences in resources and capacity affect what health questions are answered
requires comprehensive solutions = use of Common Fund

each project is expected to include interventions 👏🏽👏🏽

framework of health equity

"We want to turn the NIH into the National Institutes of Hope:" such a great line by Dr. Rivers

VERY good point about what constitutes a MSI and having to grapple with that

acknowledgement that some are already well-resourced

concern that FOA has to include intervention which excludes basic research

Dr. Collins points out he was the one who pushed for this qualification, based on focus on observational studies in the past and fact that it's a way to directly address health equity

DO I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH DR. COLLINS?

great pushback to keep emphasis on interventions

all ACD members support the use of the Common Fund for health disparity research