Menu
Log in


Gender based NHMRC grants

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 
  • 31 Oct 2022 10:40 AM
    Reply # 12972111 on 12970788

    Hi SSA, 

    I'd also like to know if SSA submitted a statement as part of NHMRC's very brief consultation.  Individual medical researchers weren't invited to submit written comments, but some institutions were.  Did we make a submission?  And if so, what position did we take?  

    Best regards, 

    James.

  • 31 Oct 2022 10:18 AM
    Reply # 12972059 on 12970788

    Hi Chris,

    I don't share (or understand) your outrage. Perhaps I've missed something you said earlier or perhaps I don't see NHMRC as a career maker/breaker.  A couple of points: there are so many opportunities for STEMM students these days that quotas on NHMRC grants should not discourage anyone (male or female) from pursuing a career they love.  There are so many career options outside of academia; many of them freeing the passionate researcher from the endless grind of grant writing.  

    I think the NHMRC decision came from an honest effort to correct past inequities. Their current stance may be optimal or suboptimal for some demographics. I don't know if your position would be more optimal for every demographic (more "fair"), and it's unclear to me that a "correct" analysis of the data could decide that. 

    There is a lot of "unfairness" that shapes one's professional life. What seems "fair" to some feels "unfair" to others.  Sometimes we wonder if we were treated unfairly because of our gender or our appearance or some other superficial feature irrelevant to our professional capability.

    Ultimately we need to make our personal decision about how we choose to live our lives, given our options and circumstances.


  • 30 Oct 2022 10:48 PM
    Reply # 12971616 on 12970788

    Hi Chris

    I don't think the tone of your response is helpful. This is a serious debate about what's best to do for science in Australia. Calling me a problem and swearing is unprofessional. 

    I'm happy to discuss the numbers and the potential causes of the biases.  

    Adrian (not Glenn)

  • 30 Oct 2022 7:23 PM
    Reply # 12971524 on 12970788

    This discussion would have been much better on ANZstat where we once has a stats community, where a topical issue could be discussed with hundreds of interested colleagues.

    I will go through Glenn’s response in detail.

    There's been a large and ongoing bias against women at senior levels in NHMRC funding that's very clear in the data.” The data Glenn refers to shows no such thing. I have attached a rough analysis. Success rates are similar for males and females. Where is the bias? Who is biased? The NHMRC assessors? It is too easy to make these claims without having the courage to be specific.

    “Women take on more caring responsibilities.” It is the job of the NHMRC to fund projects based on their quality alone. Tax payer’s money is involved. In assessing track record of the applicant, there is already a statement of achievement relative to opportunity, specifically for those who face family interruptions. It is a bit sad if you are a male who took time to raise kids.  You are going to miss out with this new zero-testicle based system. Does anybody care? Perhaps only those with sons or grandsons.

    “Applicants … drop-out at the senior levels”. This is cross-sectional data not longitudinal, a point I make in the attached document. There is some drop-out in the industry but the discussion paper data cannot address it.

    Applications reflect gender ratios in our industry at senior levels. This is the NHMRC view not mine. Not to mention that senior male applicants will probably be employing several female post-docs. Why is the discussion paper not based on sex of beneficiaries rather than  sex of CI? Probably because the message of affirmative action would be obscured.

    Glenn claims that he has heard females get passed over because “they’ll just go off and have babies”.  I have been in academia for 45 years and have never heard this. Not second or third hand. Not at all in any forum. I call bullshit. Maybe in steel works but not in academia. If you have any information at all Glenn, it is time to name names. If you keep silent you are the problem. Speak up or keep quiet. Stop spreading third hand rumours to make a political point. There is no evidence of bias let alone sexism in our industry. Well not until now.

    “The new system will mean equal funding for men and women. Hopefully it will also encourage more women to apply.” If 1+1=2 and if women can count then it surely will. If you are mid-career female you are virtually guaranteed of success based on the figures in the discussions paper. If you are a mid-career male you have to be nuts to apply for the NHMRC next year.

    “The NHMRC did a roadshow on the discussion paper around the country and online. The gender split at these events was telling, I think it was about 3 to 1.” Was it 3 to 1 in favour of males or females?  How is it telling? I cannot guess what you mean. In any case, I think many females are completely against affirmative action. Here is an email I received based on a similar post at Biometrics.

    “As someone who has received awards designated for women, I can tell you first hand what a terrible impact they have. Others couldn't help but assume that I'd won them because I'm a woman, not because I deserved them. Worse, I myself didn't know whether I deserved them! Early career researchers in particular do not need additional reasons to doubt themselves.

    I have children of both sexes, and I fear for them. I want them to be judged on their merits alone, but that wish seems unlikely to come true in the current climate.”

    This woman, who has an H-index of 45, is scared to have her name published. She is one of several folk who thanked me for challenging this toxic NHMRC decision, mostly female.

    If I had known about the roadshow I would have attended and injected some sanity into the discussion. Unfortunately, nobody in the SSAI leadership thought it worth bringing to our attention. Never too late I guess. But unfortunately, in this case it is.


    1 file
  • 30 Oct 2022 7:33 AM
    Reply # 12971266 on 12970788

    Hi Chris

    There's been a large and ongoing bias against women at senior levels in NHMRC funding that's very clear in the data. See the summary data in the discusssion paper. There are lots of female applicants at the early career stage, but they drop-out at the senior levels. This is likely because women take on more caring responsibilities (children and elderly parents) and so their CVs don't have the same publication numbers as men. I don't think these numbers have anything to do with underlying talent. Likely as well, there's some sexism mixed into the bias, and I've personally heard of biases against employing young women, "because they'll just go and have babies".

    The new system will mean equal funding for men and women. Hopefully it will also encourage more women to apply, and for universities to better support their female talent.

    The NHMRC did a roadshow on the discussion paper around the country and online. The gender split at these events was telling, I think it was about 3 to 1. 

    Adrian

  • 29 Oct 2022 3:23 PM
    Message # 12970788

    It appears that NHMRC grants are now to be based on gender. Despite the much larger numbers of male applicants at more senior levels (L1-L3), grants will be given in equal numbers. So the success rates for females will necessarily be 3-4 times higher than males.

    NHMRC claimed a wide consultation process after a discussion paper was released in July.  I never heard anything about it until the announcement of their decision. As far as I know, the Biometrics Society of which I am a member were not consulted.

    Was SSA consulted at all? I assume not but if so what was our stated position?


<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 
Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software