Disparities in funding for Nobel Prize awards in medicine and physiology across nationalities, races, and gender

Since 1901, the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine has been awarded to numerous individuals for their outstanding contributions. This article presents a comprehensive analysis of the Nobel Prize recipients, focusing on gender, race, and nationality. We observe that an alarming disparity emerges when we examine the underrepresentation of Black scientists among Nobel laureates. Furthermore, trends in nationalities show how Americans make up the majority of Nobel Prize winners, while there is a noticeable lack of gender and racial minority winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Together, this highlights the importance of diversity and inclusion in scientific achievement. We offer suggestions and techniques, including funding opportunities and expanding nominators, to improve the gender, racial, and geographical diversity of Nobel Prizes.

Promoting diversity and overcoming publication barriers in Latin American neuroscience and Alzheimer's disease research: A call to action

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a global health issue. Because AD is a condition demanding effective management, its socioeconomic burden is immense and threatens the health systems of both low‐ and middle‐income (LMIC) and high‐income (HIC) countries. However, while most of the HICs are increasing their budget for AD research, the situation is different in LMICs, and resources are scarce. In addition, LMIC researchers face significant barriers to publishing in international peer reviewed journals, including funding constraints; language barriers; and in many cases, high article processing charges. In this perspective, we discuss these disparities and propose some actions that could help promote diversity, and ultimately translate into improved AD research capacity in LMICs, especially in Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Disparities in National Institute of Health trauma research funding: The search for sufficient funding opportunities

To evaluate disparities in the National Institute of Health (NIH) trauma research funding.Traumatic injury has increased in both prevalence and cost over the last decade. In the event of a traumatic injury, patients in the United States (US) rely on the trauma system to provide high-quality care. The current trauma research funding is not commensurate with the extent of the burden of trauma on the US population.In this qualitative study, the National Institutes of Health's Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data were reviewed. The burden of traumatic injury on the US and the NIH trauma research funding was examined and compared with other diseases.In 2018, the NIH funded an estimated $639 million to traumatic injury research projects, <2% of the NIH budget. Comparatively, the NIH funded an estimated $6.3 billion towards cancer research in 2018. Cancer research receives extensively more funding than trauma research despite that trauma accounts for 24.1% of all years of potential life lost (YPLL) before age 75 compared with 21.3% for cancer.In the event of traumatic injury, trauma systems in the US should be able to provide high-quality care to patients yet cannot do so without adequate research funding. The federal funding contributed towards trauma research deserves a re-evaluation.