Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Differences in Institutional Support by Sex—Reply

Differences in Institutional Support by Sex—Reply In Reply Ms Robinson and Dr Snellman provide precisely the sort of response we had hoped for in publishing our results: a serious discussion about the different career trajectories of male and female scientists. Our data raise the possibility that differences in early career institutional support may be one obstacle faced by women in biomedical research. However, as noted by Robinson and Snellman, the nature of our sample composed of applicants to 2 early-career award programs, does not allow us to exclude the possibility that the observed differences were due to sample bias resulting from decisions made by the early-career scientists themselves. Men and women may have made different decisions in their chosen field of study; men may have chosen research topics that required more laboratory equipment. Although possible, we do not have any reliable data to examine this possibility directly. However, as noted in the research letter, one of the grant award programs was limited to a single field of study, and the discrepancy was noted among applicants to that single program. Robinson and Snellman also postulated that men with generous start-up packages may be more likely to apply for additional research funding than similarly funded women. To the extent that women and men made different decisions in either their research interests or their need for additional funding, it would be important to better understand the factors influencing these decisions. There are, of course, other possible explanations that do not relate to sample bias. In an Editorial accompanying our article, Byington and Lee1 expressed the opinion that the difference may reflect, in part, inadequate mentoring of young female scientists. If this turned out to be the case, it would also explain the differences in K-series mentored scientist award applications noted in the letter. In addition, other known factors may influence differences in institutional support for early-career scientists. Start-up packages are negotiated between new faculty members and their department chairs, and sex-related differences may affect either party. For example, women may be less effective negotiators than men, as reported by Bowles et al.2 Implicit sex biases may affect the employer’s decision making. Carnes et al3 have reported multiple manifestations of implicit biases and developed a successful intervention to reduce implicit sex bias. Further improvements will be based on a better understanding of the multiple factors that influence these disparities. A recent report4 suggests that institutional commitment to reducing sex-based disparity in academic medical leadership positions can result in measurable improvement. Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor. Back to top Article Information Corresponding Author: Robert D. Sege, MD, PhD, Medical Foundation Division, Health Resources in Action, 95 Berkeley St, Boston, MA 02116 (rsege@hria.org). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. References 1. Byington CL, Lee V. Addressing disparities in academic medicine: moving forward. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1139-1141.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 2. Bowles HR, Babcock L, Lai L. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;103(1):84-103.Google ScholarCrossref 3. Carnes M, Devine PG, Baier Manwell L, et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):221-230.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4. Valantine HA, Grewal D, Ku MC, et al. The gender gap in academic medicine: comparing results from a multifaceted intervention for Stanford faculty to peer and national cohorts. Acad Med. 2014;89(6):904-911.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Differences in Institutional Support by Sex—Reply

Sege, Robert D.; Nykeil-Bub, Linley; Selk, Sabrina
JAMA , Volume 315 (8) – Feb 23, 2016
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/differences-in-institutional-support-by-sex-reply-TN0dXToDtj

References (4)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.2015.17148
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In Reply Ms Robinson and Dr Snellman provide precisely the sort of response we had hoped for in publishing our results: a serious discussion about the different career trajectories of male and female scientists. Our data raise the possibility that differences in early career institutional support may be one obstacle faced by women in biomedical research. However, as noted by Robinson and Snellman, the nature of our sample composed of applicants to 2 early-career award programs, does not allow us to exclude the possibility that the observed differences were due to sample bias resulting from decisions made by the early-career scientists themselves. Men and women may have made different decisions in their chosen field of study; men may have chosen research topics that required more laboratory equipment. Although possible, we do not have any reliable data to examine this possibility directly. However, as noted in the research letter, one of the grant award programs was limited to a single field of study, and the discrepancy was noted among applicants to that single program. Robinson and Snellman also postulated that men with generous start-up packages may be more likely to apply for additional research funding than similarly funded women. To the extent that women and men made different decisions in either their research interests or their need for additional funding, it would be important to better understand the factors influencing these decisions. There are, of course, other possible explanations that do not relate to sample bias. In an Editorial accompanying our article, Byington and Lee1 expressed the opinion that the difference may reflect, in part, inadequate mentoring of young female scientists. If this turned out to be the case, it would also explain the differences in K-series mentored scientist award applications noted in the letter. In addition, other known factors may influence differences in institutional support for early-career scientists. Start-up packages are negotiated between new faculty members and their department chairs, and sex-related differences may affect either party. For example, women may be less effective negotiators than men, as reported by Bowles et al.2 Implicit sex biases may affect the employer’s decision making. Carnes et al3 have reported multiple manifestations of implicit biases and developed a successful intervention to reduce implicit sex bias. Further improvements will be based on a better understanding of the multiple factors that influence these disparities. A recent report4 suggests that institutional commitment to reducing sex-based disparity in academic medical leadership positions can result in measurable improvement. Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor. Back to top Article Information Corresponding Author: Robert D. Sege, MD, PhD, Medical Foundation Division, Health Resources in Action, 95 Berkeley St, Boston, MA 02116 (rsege@hria.org). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. References 1. Byington CL, Lee V. Addressing disparities in academic medicine: moving forward. JAMA. 2015;314(11):1139-1141.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 2. Bowles HR, Babcock L, Lai L. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007;103(1):84-103.Google ScholarCrossref 3. Carnes M, Devine PG, Baier Manwell L, et al. The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):221-230.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 4. Valantine HA, Grewal D, Ku MC, et al. The gender gap in academic medicine: comparing results from a multifaceted intervention for Stanford faculty to peer and national cohorts. Acad Med. 2014;89(6):904-911.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Journal

JAMA – American Medical Association

Published: Feb 23, 2016

There are no references for this article.