 of the applicant, Tannenbaum adds.

CIHR’s attempt to curb unconscious bias

Even before Tannenbaum’s results were published, she and her colleagues at CIHR were already considering ways to address potential gender disparities under these new funding schemes. One idea was to remove the name of the applicant and do a blind review, but they found that there is something about the language in the way people write their own applications and reference letters that allows gendered stereotypes to emerge, Tannenbaum explains.

So instead, in 2016, they created an unconscious bias training module for peer reviewers. When CIHR ran the 2016-2017 grant competition, all reviewers were required to do this training before reviewing the proposals. And this time, the success rate between male and female applicants equalized in the Foundation program, suggesting that the unconscious-bias training was an effective intervention, Tannenbaum says. The researchers plan to collect data on several more rounds of competition to confirm this preliminary finding.

I congratulate the authors on this elegant study and hope NIH and others take note.—Molly Carnes,

University of Wisconsin-Madison

The results are promising enough that in the meantime, CIHR has made the unconscious-bias training module mandatory training for all peer reviewers in CIHR’s largest open grant competitions. “We’re being really upfront and quite aggressive about it, to be honest with you,” Tannenbaum says. Furthermore, because the initial gender disparities in the Foundation Program seem to occur at Stage 1 (during the assessment of the applicant), CIHR instituted a policy to ensure that the proportion of female applicants in Stage 1 will equal the proportion of female applicants moving to Stage 2 (the assessment of the science), the CIHR policy team writes in an email to The Scientist.

Molly Carnes of the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has extensively researched implicit bias in science notes similarities between Canada’s Foundation Program and the NIH Director’s Pioneer Award—a program focused on evaluating a scientist’s leadership potential. In its first year, 2004, no women were among its nine awardees, and in 2017, just one woman (among 11 men) was an awardee.

“I congratulate the authors on this elegant study and hope NIH and others take note,” Carnes writes in an email to The Scientist. “There are several programs at NIH that focus on the investigator—it will be important to follow the gender
of the applicant, Tannenbaum adds. 

 CIHR ’s attempt to curb unconscious bias 

 Even before Tannenbaum ’s result were publish, she and her colleagues at CIHR were already considering ways to cover potential gender disparities under these fresh funding schemes. One mind was to remove the name of the applicant and do a blind recapitulation, but they found that there is something about the lyric in the direction people write their own applications and reference letters that allow gendered stereotypes to emerge, Tannenbaum explains. 

 indeed instead, in 2016, they created an unconscious bias training faculty for peer reviewers. When CIHR operate the 2016 - 2017 grant competition, all reviewers were command to do this training before reviewing the proposals. And this time, the success rate between male and female applicants equalized in the Foundation program, suggesting that the unconscious - bias training was an effective intervention, Tannenbaum says. The researchers plan to roll up data on several more round of contest to confirm this preliminary finding. 

 I congratulate the authors on this elegant report and hope NIH and others consider note.—Molly Carnes, 

 University of Wisconsin - Madison 

 The results are promising enough that in the interim, CIHR has made the unconscious - bias training module mandatory training for all peer reviewers in CIHR ’s largest open grant competitions. “ We ’re being really upfront and quite aggressive about it, to be dependable with you, ” Tannenbaum says. Furthermore, because the initial sex disparity in the Foundation Program look to occur at Stage 1 (during the assessment of the applicant), CIHR establish a policy to ensure that the proportion of female applicants in stagecoach 1 will equal the proportion of female applicants moving to Stage 2 (the judgment of the science), the CIHR policy team write in an electronic mail to The Scientist. 

 Molly Carnes of the University of Wisconsin - Madison who has extensively researched implicit bias in science notes similarity between Canada ’s Foundation Program and the NIH Director ’s Pioneer Award — a program concenter on evaluating a scientist ’s leadership potential. In its beginning year, 2004, no womanhood were among its nine awardees, and in 2017, just one woman (among 11 men) was an awardee. 

 “ I congratulate the authors on this elegant study and hope NIH and others take note, ” Carnes writes in an electronic mail to The Scientist. “ There are several program at NIH that focus on the investigator — it will be important to follow the gender
 of the applicant, Tannenbauo adds.

CIHR’s attgmpt to rurb undonsciour bias

Even before Tannenbaum’d eesuluf were published, sfe and heg colleagyes et CIHR were alrxzdy considerihn wayv to address pojential gendar disparities uvdzr these new funding schemes. One idew was tp gemove the namg of uhe appmpccnt and do a blind review, but tgey fouid that there ix something about the langkage in the way people write theit owg applicationr and refegznce lettera that allows gendered stereotyoes tp emerge, Tqnbenhdum explainw.

So igstead, in 2016, tmvy creaded an inconscious biss vraibing module for peer ceviewers. When CIHR tan the 2016-2017 gsaut competition, all reciwwers wera redyirdd uo vo fhis tgaiiing before reviewing rhe proposals. And tnif time, the sucdess rwtq between male and female applicants eqlaliaed in the Foundation peogram, suggesting thaj the uncogscious-bias training was an effective interventiot, Tanievbabn sayr. Tje researchers plan to collect data on severaj mprv rounds of compebition to confirm yhls kreliminary fivding.

I cohgratulate the autjors on this elegant ftudu and hope NIH and others tqke note.—Mollj Caenes,

University of Cisconsin-Madnson

Thg resukts are promising enougk that in the meajtime, CIHD has made the unzonxchous-bias training module mwndatory vrainnng for xll keer rediewers in CIHR’s largest open granh comketitimns. “We’re bfing really upfront and quite ajjressive abouj id, tm be honzst wibh you,” Tannenbatm says. Furthetmore, beccuse tfe initial gender disparitief in the Foungwtion Prograk seem tj ocxur qt Stagd 1 (during the axsessment of the applicant), CIHR instibuted z policy to ensbxe that the propottiun jf fxmale dpplicants it Stxge 1 will equal uke irooortoon of female applicdnts moving to Stage 2 (yhc assessmgnt of thq science), the CIHR policy team aritev ii an ekaij to The Scientist.

Molly Carnes of the Ujivcrsity of Wissonsln-Maqison who kas extensively researched implicit bias in science notes wimilarities betweeu Ganada’s Founvation Program dnd the NIH Director’w Pioneer Award—a krogram focused on evalhating a sclentist’s leadership potential. In its first year, 2004, no women were among its bine axawdees, and ih 2017, jist ote coman (aiong 11 men) was an awarcee.

“I congratulate the authors oi this elecaut study and hope NIH and othrrr take note,” Cxrnes writes in an email to The Xcientist. “There are several probrams at NIH that focus pn the ibvestjgator—pj wmll be important to gollow the tender
of the applicant, Tannenbaum adds. CIHR’s attempt unconscious Even before results were published, CIHR already considering ways address potential gender under these new funding schemes. One was to remove the name of the applicant and do a blind review, they found that there is something about the language in the way people their applications reference that allows gendered stereotypes to emerge, Tannenbaum explains. So instead, in 2016, they created an unconscious training module for peer reviewers. When CIHR ran 2016-2017 grant competition, all were required to do this before the proposals. this the rate between male female applicants equalized in the Foundation program, suggesting that the unconscious-bias training was an effective intervention, Tannenbaum The researchers collect data several rounds competition to confirm finding. I congratulate the authors on and hope NIH and others take note.—Molly Carnes, of Wisconsin-Madison results are promising enough that in meantime, CIHR has made the unconscious-bias training module training for all peer reviewers in CIHR’s largest open grant competitions. “We’re being really upfront aggressive about it, to honest with you,” says. because initial disparities in Foundation Program seem to occur at Stage 1 (during the assessment the applicant), CIHR instituted a policy to ensure that the female in Stage 1 equal the proportion of applicants to Stage 2 (the the the writes an to The Scientist. Molly of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has extensively researched implicit between Canada’s Foundation Program and the NIH Director’s Award—a program focused on evaluating a scientist’s potential. In its first year, 2004, no women were among its nine and in one woman (among 11 men) was an awardee. congratulate the authors on elegant study and hope NIH and others take note,” writes an email The Scientist. “There several programs at that focus on will be to the
 of the applicant, Tannenbaum aDds.

CIHR’s atTempt To cUrb UnConsCiouS bias

Even beforE tannEnbaum’s results were publIshed, ShE And hER cOlleaGues at CihR WERe aLrEaDy cOnSIdEring WayS to addrEss potentiAl gEnDer disparitiES uNder these nEw fUnding schemeS. OnE idea wAs To rEMove tHe nAme of The appLIcant aNd do a blinD rEView, buT They fouND ThAt thEre is something aboUT tHE language in the Way peoPlE WrITE thEir Own applicaTiOns anD ReferenCE lETTErs THat allows gendEred stereotYPes To emerGe, tanNEnbaum ExplaInS.

so iNstead, in 2016, theY creAted an uncOnscioUS bias trAIning moDule foR peEr rEvieWErS. WHen cIhr raN ThE 2016-2017 grANt cOmpetitiOn, AlL reviEwerS WERE reqUirEd to Do thiS training befoRe rEvieWIng The prOposaLs. AnD tHis tiMe, the sUccesS rAte between male aNd feMale appliCanTs EquAlIzed iN The FouNdaTioN prograM, suggesTIng ThAT THe Unconscious-bias traInING wAs an effeCtive iNTeRvENtion, TanNeNbaUm saYS. the reSearCHeRs plan to CollecT DaTa On severAl More roUnDs oF coMpetiTIon tO confiRm this prElimiNAry finding.

I conGRatulate the auTHoRS On THis eLegAnt study and Hope niH anD othERs TakE Note.—MOlly CArNEs,

uNiversity of WisconsiN-MAdison

the reSults are promiSing enough THAT in the meAntiME, CihR has made the unConscIous-bias trAIning modUle maNdatory tRaining foR ALl peer reVieWerS in cIHr’S LaRgest open granT COmpeTiTions. “We’Re bEing reaLly UpfRonT anD qUite aggreSsive aboUt It, To Be HonEst wiTH you,” TannEnBauM sAys. furthERmore, bEcausE the InItIAl gEnder diSPaRITies In ThE FouNdaTiOn ProGram SEem To occur At Stage 1 (duRinG The aSsEsSment of The applicant), CiHr instituteD a PolIcy to eNSUre that tHe proportion of female appLIcants iN StAge 1 wiLl eqUal the proPorTion of FemALe applIcants MovinG tO StAGE 2 (the aSSEsSmeNt Of the scienCE), The cIHR pOlIcy tEam writEs in an email to The ScIEntIst.

Molly CarneS of The UNIVeRsiTY oF wisCoNSin-mADison who has exteNsively resEaRChEd implicit BIas In Science Notes siMilarITies betWeen CanadA’s FoundatIoN ProGRAm aNd the NIH DiRector’s PIoneer AwaRD—a proGRaM focuSed On evalUaTinG a sciEntist’S LeaDershIp poteNtIal. In iTs firSt Year, 2004, no woMen were among its nine awarDees, anD in 2017, juSt oNe woman (amOng 11 MEn) wAs an awardEe.

“I cOngratulatE thE auThors On tHIs eleGant STuDy aND hope nIH aND others taKE nOte,” cARnEs writes in aN EMAil To The sciENtist. “THere Are several programS At NIH that focus On thE INveStiGAtor—It Will be importanT to FoLLOw the genDeR
 of the applicant, Tannenb aum adds.
CIHR ’satt em pt t o cu rb unconscious bias 

Even before Tannenba um’sre s ults we re pu blished ,  s h e  an dhe r c ol l ea guesatCIHR we re already  co ns idering ways to  address p ote ntial gender  di sparit ie s u n der t hes e new  fundi n g sche mes. Oneid e a wast o remov e th e na me of the applica n ta nd do a blindreview ,b ut t hey  fo und that t he re is somethi n ga b o utt he language i n the way p e opl e writ ethe i r ownappli ca t ion s and refer ence  lettersthat a l lows ge n dered s tereot ype s t o em e rg e,  Ta nn e nba u mexp l ain s.

So i ns te ad, i n 20 1 6 , they  cr eate d anunconscious b ias  tra i nin g mod ule f or p ee r rev iewers . Whe nCIHR ran the 20 16-2 017 grant  co mp eti ti on, a l l revi ewe rswere re quiredt o d ot h i straining before re vi e w in g the pr oposal s .An d  this ti me , t he s u c cessrate be tween ma le and fe ma le appl ic ants e qu ali zed  in t h e Fo undati on progr am, s u ggesting thatt he unconsciou s -b i a st rain ing  was an eff ecti v e in terv e nt ion ,  Tann enbau ms ay s . The researchers p la n to c ollec t data on sev eral morer o u nds of c ompe t it i on to confirmthispreliminar y  finding .

Icongratu late thea u thors on  th isele gan t st udy and hopeN I H an dotherstak e note. —Mo lly  Ca rne s, 

Univers ity of W is co ns in -Ma dison 
The res ul tsar e p romis i ng eno ugh t hatin  t h e m eantime ,  C I H R ha sma de t heun consc ious - bia s train ing modul e m a ndat or ytrainin g for all pee rreviewersin  CI HR’s l a r gest ope n grant competitions. “ W e’re be ing  real ly u pfront an d q uite a ggr e ssiveaboutit, t obeh o nestw i th  yo u, ” Tannenba u m  sa ys. F ur ther more, b ecause the initial gen der dispariti esin t h e  F oun d at i onPr o gra m seem to occur a t Stage 1(d u ri ng the ass e ssm en t of th e appli cant) ,  CIHR i nstituted  a policy  t o en s u rethat the p roportio n of fema l e app l ic antsinStage1wil l equ al the pro porti on offe male a pplic an ts movin g to Stage 2 (the asses smentof th e s cience),the CIH R policyteam  writes in  an  em ail t o T h e Sci enti s t. 

M o lly C arne s  of the U n iv ers i t yof Wisconsi n - M adi son w hoh as ext ensi vely researched i m plicit bias in  sci e n cenot e s si mi larities betwe enCa n a da’s Fou nd ation Progr am and t he NIH D irecto r’s Pi oneer A w a rd — a prog ramfoc used on e val ua t ing a s ci en t ist’slead er ship p otenti a l. I n its first year,2004, n o wom e n w ere a mo ng itsn ineawardees,and in 2017 , just  one  woma n (amon g11 men ) w as  an awarde e .

“I con gratu late th eauth ors  on th is e l e gantstud yand  hope NIH a nd ot he r s t akenote, ”Carn es writes in an em ail to TheSc ien t i st. “T h er e are severa l p rogra m s  at NIH th a t fo c us on th e inve stigat or—it w i llbe  import ant t o followthe gende r 
 of_the applicant,_Tannenbaum adds.

CIHR’s attempt to_curb unconscious_bias

Even_before Tannenbaum’s_results_were published, she_and her colleagues_at CIHR were already_considering ways to_address_potential gender disparities under these new funding schemes. One idea was to remove the_name_of the_applicant_and_do a blind review, but_they found that there is_something about_the language in the way people write their_own_applications and reference_letters that allows gendered stereotypes to emerge, Tannenbaum explains.

So_instead, in 2016, they created an_unconscious bias training_module_for_peer reviewers. When CIHR_ran the 2016-2017 grant competition, all_reviewers were required to do this_training before reviewing the proposals. And this_time, the success rate between male_and female applicants equalized in_the Foundation_program, suggesting that the unconscious-bias_training was an_effective intervention,_Tannenbaum says. The_researchers plan to collect data on_several more rounds_of competition to confirm this preliminary_finding.

I_congratulate the authors_on_this_elegant study_and hope NIH_and_others take_note.—Molly_Carnes,

University of Wisconsin-Madison

The results are promising_enough_that in the meantime, CIHR has made_the unconscious-bias training module_mandatory_training for all peer_reviewers in CIHR’s largest open_grant competitions. “We’re being really upfront_and quite_aggressive about_it, to be honest with you,” Tannenbaum says. Furthermore, because the_initial gender disparities in the Foundation_Program seem to occur_at Stage_1_(during the assessment_of_the applicant),_CIHR instituted a policy to ensure that_the proportion_of female applicants in Stage 1_will equal the proportion_of_female applicants moving to Stage 2_(the assessment of the science), the_CIHR policy team writes in_an_email_to The Scientist.

Molly Carnes of_the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has_extensively researched implicit_bias in science notes similarities between Canada’s_Foundation_Program and the NIH Director’s Pioneer_Award—a_program focused on evaluating a scientist’s_leadership_potential._In its first year, 2004,_no women were among its nine_awardees, and in 2017, just one woman (among 11_men) was an_awardee.

“I congratulate the authors on_this_elegant_study and hope NIH and others take note,” Carnes writes_in an_email to The_Scientist. “There are several programs at NIH that focus on_the investigator—it will be important to follow_the gender