Enhancing Diversity as a Tool for Increasing Research Impact in Biomedical Research

Brian D. Gonzalez, PhD, SBM Member Delegate

For decades, federal law and regulations have consistently promoted increasing diversity in the research workforce.¹ For example, in 1980, Congress established an office within the National Science Foundation to increase the “participation of nationally underrepresented populations… in scientific, professional and technical careers and fields.”² In 1992, Congress directed the NIH to provide research service awards that would increase recruitment into the biomedical research workforce for women and racial/ethnic minorities.³ But despite this decades-long effort to diversify the research workforce, many academic institutions are unaware of the strong rationale behind it and how to achieve diversity.

There are several justifications for increasing diversity among researchers. Often overlooked is the most impactful and objective justification: more diverse research teams do more impactful research. The evidence is clear from compelling studies in broad fields of research. One example is a 2018 study that examined 1,045,401 papers published between 1958 – 2014.⁴ The characteristics of the authorship teams were examined as correlates of each paper’s impact, operationalized as the number of citations the paper received within 5 years. A consistent finding was that authorship teams that were more diverse had greater scientific impact. Authorship teams with more diversity in terms of the authors’ ages, gender, field of research, and institutional affiliation were more impactful. But the strongest correlate by far was the racial/ethnic diversity of the authorship team. More recently, a study examined the impact of gender diversity on the impact of 6.6 million papers.⁵ Papers with greater gender diversity among authors had greater impact, after controlling for the authors’ fields of expertise, career stage diversity, and other relevant factors.

In summary, more diverse research teams lead to more impactful research. This likely translates to greater benefits of their research for the communities they serve. But how can we increase the diversity of biomedical research teams? To start with, it’s helpful to remember advice from Hippocrates: “Make a habit of two things – to help, or at least do no harm.”⁶ And there is inadvertent harm from some practices intended to increase diversity. Sociologists Frank Dobbins and Alexandra Kalev recently published Getting to Diversity: What Works and What Doesn’t, where they review evidence of change in manager-level diversity in 806 medium and large companies in the USA from 1971 – 2015.⁷ Similar findings were summarized in a 2016 article published in Harvard Business Review.⁸ Some commonly used tactics to increase diversity generally result in either no change or reductions in the gender and racial diversity of managers.

Dobbins and Kalev recommend strategies in these four areas that empirical research shows do increase diversity.⁷

1. Democratize recruitment: One approach is to target recruitment efforts to the underrepresented populations you seek to include. For example, academic institutions should target recruitment to historically Black colleges/universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and rural-serving institutions.
2. Democratize networks: Too often, mentorship is left to the mentee to arrange, but leaders should take responsibility for verifying that they receive sufficient quantity and quality of mentorship.
3. Democratize career development: Ensure everyone has access to workshops and skill development opportunities by allowing self-nominations, eliminating barriers to attendance, and encouraging nominations of people from underrepresented groups.
4. Democratize supports for work-life balance: Supports like flexible scheduling and childcare support are shown to increase diversity, particularly for underrepresented women. Senior leaders should also set an example and show that they personally benefit from these supports. This reduces stigma that prohibits some from requesting support for themselves.

To accelerate the progress of biomedical research, it’s imperative we draw on the full resources of our diverse nation. To do so, academic institutions should spend the time and effort to implement these empirically supported strategies. The benefits to our teams, our institutions, and the communities we serve are well worth the investment.

Resources:

1.  NIH Diversity in Extramural Programs: Eliminating Barriers - Congressional Interest in Diversity. Bethesda, MD, National Institutes of Health
2. National Science Foundation Authorization and Science and Technology Equal Opportunities Act, 42 USC 1861, 1980
3. Public Health Service Act Tehcnical Amendments Act, 42 USF 201, 1992
4.  AlShebli BK, Rahwan T, Woon WL: The preeminence of ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration. Nature Communications 9:5163, 2018
5. Yang Y, Tian TY, Woodruff TK, et al: Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119:e2200841119, 2022
6. Hippocrates: Part 11, The Genuine Works of Hippocrates. New York, Dover, 1868
7. Dobbin F, Kalev A: Getting to diversity: What works and what doesn’t, Harvard University Press, 2022
8. Dobbin F, Kalev A: Why diversity programs fail. Harvard Business Review 94:14, 2016