Parth A Patel1, Rhea Gopali2, Anvith Reddy3, Kajol K Patel1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. 3. Department of Cellular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in ophthalmology and characterize its distribution to departments and principal investigators (PIs) affiliated with U.S. medical schools. DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive analysis. METHODS: We queried publically accessible data from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research and NIH RePORTER to determine annual funding trends in ophthalmology from 2009 to 2020. To characterize the distribution of funding, we further ranked the top departments and principal investigators (PIs). Department websites (among other online resources) were utilized to extract characteristics of the latter cohort. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation, we observed a modest 9% increase in median NIH funding to academic ophthalmology departments between 2009 and 2020. In the same time period, among individual PIs, this translated to a 9% decline in median funding. Our results among both departments and PIs indicated a persistent inequality in NIH funding. In 2020, 10 ophthalmology departments received 44% of total funding, which is consistent with findings from prior years. Our ranking of PIs by average annual NIH funding indicated a disproportionate representation of males (76%) and PhDs (58%) in the top 50. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of this investigation suggest NIH funding remains limited for individual investigators, reflecting the increasingly competitive nature of the grant application process. Systemic alterations will be required to reverse these trends. If not accomplished, nascent and established researchers alike will continue to endure challenges in obtaining and maintaining funding.
PURPOSE: To analyze trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in ophthalmology and characterize its distribution to departments and principal investigators (PIs) affiliated with U.S. medical schools. DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive analysis. METHODS: We queried publically accessible data from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research and NIH RePORTER to determine annual funding trends in ophthalmology from 2009 to 2020. To characterize the distribution of funding, we further ranked the top departments and principal investigators (PIs). Department websites (among other online resources) were utilized to extract characteristics of the latter cohort. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation, we observed a modest 9% increase in median NIH funding to academic ophthalmology departments between 2009 and 2020. In the same time period, among individual PIs, this translated to a 9% decline in median funding. Our results among both departments and PIs indicated a persistent inequality in NIH funding. In 2020, 10 ophthalmology departments received 44% of total funding, which is consistent with findings from prior years. Our ranking of PIs by average annual NIH funding indicated a disproportionate representation of males (76%) and PhDs (58%) in the top 50. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the results of this investigation suggest NIH funding remains limited for individual investigators, reflecting the increasingly competitive nature of the grant application process. Systemic alterations will be required to reverse these trends. If not accomplished, nascent and established researchers alike will continue to endure challenges in obtaining and maintaining funding.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research; NIH RePORTER; National Institutes of Health; clinician-scientist; inequities