PSI-B-39 Late-Breaking: Animal science career outcomes: influence of gender on research funding from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Abstract Background: Overall, women and men in STEM degrees graduate at parity. However, women are not equally represented in academic positions, and this is true for agricultural fields including the animal sciences. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is the USDA’s primary extramural science agency that administers funding for programs to advance agriculture-related sciences. The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) is NIFA’s flagship granting program that funds research, education, and extension efforts. Our objective was to determine the effect of gender on submission rates and success rates in animal-related AFRI program area priorities. Methods: All applications submitted to AFRI programs in animal genetics, health/welfare, production, and reproduction between 2013–2018 were evaluated. Gender was assigned to Project Directors using Gender API software. Then the effect of gender on submission rates and success rates across and within program areas was determined. Results: A total of 2,018 applications were assigned a gender and examined further. Overall, women submitted 28% (i.e. men submitted 72%) of applications with some variation in different areas of animal sciences (30% in animal health to 24% in animal reproduction). On average, women’s applications had a 24% success rate, compared to men at 21%; women applicants to animal genomics had the highest success rate of 42% while the lowest was in animal health at 19%. Discussion: Women submit fewer proposals than men, consistent with the fact that women hold fewer academic positions needed to apply for research grants such as those from AFRI. Interestingly, women tend to have higher success rates than men. One hypothesis is that the women that hold these academic positions and apply for these research grants are outstanding performers. However, more research is needed to address several important factors that may influence these results such as co-investigators, potential panel biases, and career stage.