Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program.

The scientific community is engaged in an active debate on the value of its peer-review system. Does peer review actually serve the role we envision for it-that of helping government agencies predict what ideas have the best chance of contributing to scientific advancement? Many federal agencies use a two-step review process that includes programmatic discretion in selecting awards. This process allows us to determine whether success in a future independent scientific-research career is more accurately predicted by peer-review recommendations or discretion by program staff and institute leaders. Using data from a prestigious training program at the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA), we provide evidence on the efficacy of peer review. We find that, despite all current claims to the contrary, the existing peer-review system works as intended. It more closely predicts high-quality science and future research independence than discretion. We discover also that regression discontinuity, the econometric method typically used to examine the effect of scientific funding, does not fit many scientific-funding models and should only be used with caution when studying federal awards for science.

Predicting the Effect of Adding a Citizenship Question to the 2020 Census.

The addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census could affect the self-response rate, a key driver of the cost and quality of a census. We find that citizenship question response patterns in the American Community Survey (ACS) suggest that it is a sensitive question when asked about administrative record noncitizens but not when asked about administrative record citizens. ACS respondents who were administrative record noncitizens in 2017 frequently choose to skip the question or answer that the person is a citizen. We predict the effect on self-response to the entire survey by comparing mail response rates in the 2010 ACS, which included a citizenship question, with those of the 2010 census, which did not have a citizenship question, among households in both surveys. We compare the actual ACS-census difference in response rates for households that may contain noncitizens (more sensitive to the question) with the difference for households containing only U.S. citizens. We estimate that the addition of a citizenship question will have an 8.0 percentage point larger effect on self-response rates in households that may have noncitizens relative to those with only U.S. citizens. Assuming that the citizenship question does not affect unit self-response in all-citizen households and applying the 8.0 percentage point drop to the 28.1 % of housing units potentially having at least one noncitizen would predict an overall 2.2 percentage point drop in self-response in the 2020 census, increasing costs and reducing the quality of the population count.

Advancing biomedical science through investments in elite training.

How can governments invest in the public good of science in a way that accelerates advancement and encourages innovation at the frontier of science-all the while acknowledging that investing in science means investing in scientists? The Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) program is a research-training program administered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that makes such investments. This study examines the impact of NRSA postdoctoral fellowships on subsequent career outcomes using NIH administrative records on applicants for the fellowship from 1996 to 2008. It finds that fellowships increased the probability of receiving subsequent research awards from 4.0 to 6.3 percentage points and of achieving a major independent research award from 2.6 to 4.6 percentage points. The findings demonstrate that federally funded fellowships promote the retention of scientists in the biomedical research workforce.

Is there a labor shortage?

A panel discusses ongoing and prospective developments in the US labor market. Michael Horrigan points out that job losses in the COVID recession were heavily concentrated among women, minorities, and less-educated workers. In turn, these groups have shown less progress regaining jobs, and many have left the labor force. Horrigan shows that the industry connection between vacancies and wage increases is not at all tight, suggesting that traditional explanations that labor shortages are a matter of wages not clearing the market needs to be modified. Misty Heggeness notes that much of the weakness in women's recent labor force participation has been by working mothers, but that their behavior has not been radically different than in the past. Policies that address the concerns of working mothers could lessen the possibility of swings like those recently seen. Kate Bahn expands to discuss more specific such policies, including paid leave, paid sick leave, more predictable work schedules, greater income support, as well as a revival of unions, as means to not only alleviate hardship, but also to increase labor market efficiency. Michael Strain contends that federal policy greatly enhanced consumer demand, but the income support programs, along with other problems, have restricted supply, leading to some of the distortions observed in the labor market. While he supports some of the policies proposed by other panelists, he is leery about the effects of specific government programs that have been offered.

Estimating the immediate impact of the COVID-19 shock on parental attachment to the labor market and the double bind of mothers.

I examine the impact of the COVID-19 shock on parents' labor supply during the initial stages of the pandemic. Using difference-in-difference estimation and monthly panel data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), I compare labor market attachment, non-work activity, hours worked, and earnings and wages of those in areas with early school closures and stay-in-place orders with those in areas with delayed or no pandemic closures. While there was no immediate impact on detachment or unemployment, mothers with jobs in early closure states were 68.8 percent more likely than mothers in late closure states to have a job but not be working as a result of early shutdowns. There was no effect on working fathers or working women without school age children. Mothers who continued working increased their work hours relative to comparable fathers; this effect, however, appears entirely driven by a reduction in fathers' hours worked. Overall, the pandemic appears to have induced a unique immediate juggling act for working parents of school age children. Mothers took a week of leave from formal work; fathers working fulltime, for example, reduced their hours worked by 0.53 hours over the week. While experiences were different for mothers and fathers, each are vulnerable to scarring and stunted opportunities for career growth and advancement due to the pandemic.

Women's Careers in Biomedical Sciences: Implications for the Economy, Scientific Discovery, and Women's Health.

While women have been well represented in medical school and biomedical doctoral degree programs, they do not comprise half of academic medicine faculty positions. Furthermore, there is a significant paucity of women in academic medicine leadership positions, as evidenced by the fact that only 16% of dean positions at United States Medical schools are filled by women. In this commentary, the authors review the state of women in academic medicine and argue that increased representation of women in the academic workforce will lead to economic gains, increased scientific discovery, and improvements to women's health.

Measuring Diversity of the National Institutes of Health-Funded Workforce.

PURPOSE: To measure diversity within the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded workforce. The authors use a relevant labor market perspective to more directly understand what the NIH can influence in terms of enhancing diversity through NIH policies. METHOD: Using the relevant labor market (defined as persons with advanced degrees working as biomedical scientists in the United States) as the conceptual framework, and informed by accepted economic principles, the authors used the American Community Survey and NIH administrative data to calculate representation ratios of the NIH-funded biomedical workforce from 2008 to 2012 by race, ethnicity, sex, and citizenship status, and compared this against the pool of characteristic individuals in the potential labor market. RESULTS: In general, the U.S. population during this time period was an inaccurate comparison group for measuring diversity of the NIH-funded scientific workforce. Measuring accurately, we found the representation of women and traditionally underrepresented groups in NIH-supported postdoc fellowships and traineeships and mentored career development programs was greater than their representation in the relevant labor market. The same analysis found these demographic groups are less represented in the NIH-funded independent investigator pool. CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings provided a picture of the current NIH-funded workforce and a foundation for understanding the federal role in developing, maintaining, and renewing diverse scientific human resources, further study is needed to identify whether junior- and early-stage investigators who are part of more diverse cohorts will naturally transition into independent NIH-funded investigators, or whether they will leave the workforce before achieving independent researcher status.

Policy Implications of Aging in the NIH-Funded Workforce.

Because of national interest in the "graying" of the biomedical workforce, we examine aging and funding within the pool of NIH-funded investigators and applicants, particularly in the growing field of stem cell research. We provide evidence of a maturing and more competitive stem cell workforce and discuss policy implications.