You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Health policy
Research
A systematic analysis of UK cancer research funding by gender of primary investigator
  1. Charlie D Zhou1,
  2. Michael G Head2,
  3. Dominic C Marshall3,
  4. Barnabas J Gilbert4,
  5. Majd A El-Harasis5,
  6. Rosalind Raine6,
  7. Henrietta O’Connor7,
  8. Rifat Atun8,
  9. Mahiben Maruthappu9
  1. 1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  2. 2 Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Life Sciences, Global Health Research Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  3. 3 Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
  4. 4 Department of Economics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  5. 5 Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
  6. 6 Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
  7. 7 School of Media, Communication and Sociology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  8. 8 Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  9. 9 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Charlie D Zhou; chazhou{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs).

Design Systematic analysis of all open-access data.

Methods Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value.

Results Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses.

Conclusions We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.

  • Funding
  • Gender
  • Research Investment
  • Global Health
  • Research And Development

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018625

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • RA and MM are Joint senior authors.

    • RA and MM contributed equally.

    • Contributors CDZ, MM, MGH and RA conceived and designed the study. MGH, CDZ, BJG and MAE-H obtained the data. DCM and MGH conducted data formatting and statistical analysis. All authors helped interpret the findings. CDZ wrote the first draft of the manuscript with input from MM, MGH, RR, HO’C and RA. All authors provided input to subsequent drafts. All authors had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for its integrity and the accuracy of data analysis.

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement All data used are publicly available. Entire database and associated figures are permanently available with open access online (http://www.researchinvestments.org).