Dr Anne Hultgren | Blinding Success: How Removing Institutional Bias Improves Research Funding

New research from the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation shows that blinding grant reviewers to applicants’ institutions leads to fairer funding decisions, particularly benefiting early-career scientists from less prestigious universities. The findings demonstrate how simple changes to review processes can help combat systemic biases in research funding.

Uncovering Bias in Funding Allocation

The path to scientific success often begins with securing research funding, but the process of awarding grants has long been suspected of harbouring hidden biases. When reviewers know which institution an applicant comes from, do they unconsciously favour those from prestigious universities? This question has profound implications for scientific progress and equity in research.

Studies examining bias in peer review have shown mixed results over the years. While some research suggests that blinding reviewers to applicant identities reduces bias, other studies have found little effect or even contrary results. However, most of these studies focused on gender or racial bias rather than institutional prestige.

The Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, which provides vital funding for early-career scientists, decided to investigate this question systematically. In 2020, they implemented a significant change to their Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) award process – applicants would now need to submit blinded proposals that excluded their name, gender, pronouns, and institutional affiliation.

Dr Anne Hultgren, Executive Director of the Foundation, along with colleagues Nicole Patras and Dr Jenna Hicks, carefully analysed four years of data before and after this change. Their groundbreaking findings, published in eLife, reveal that institutional prestige bias does indeed influence funding decisions but also that it can be effectively counteracted through thoughtful policy changes.

How Prestigious Institutions Have Dominated Research Funding

The team examined data from 2017–2020 (before blinding) and 2021–2024 (after blinding) for the BYI programme, which supports promising young faculty in chemistry and life sciences. They looked at how applications progressed through three key stages: initial letter of intent, invitation for full application, and final award.

To measure institutional prestige, Dr Hultgren’s team used eight different ranking systems, including federal research funding data, global university rankings, and the Foundation’s own historical funding patterns. They grouped institutions into five categories, with the top 10 most prestigious universities in one group, the next 15 in another, and so on.

The results were striking. Before blinding was implemented, applicants from the top 10 institutions were 1.4–1.7 times more likely to be invited to submit full applications compared to the average. Those from the next 15 most prestigious universities were 1.2–1.4 times more likely to advance. Meanwhile, applicants from less prestigious institutions faced significantly lower odds of success.

Blinding Levels the Playing Field for Young Scientists

Dr Hultgren and her colleagues found that the new blinded review process substantially reduced this institutional bias. After blinding was implemented, the advantage for top-ranked institutions dropped significantly – they were now only 1.0–1.3 times more likely to advance compared to average, a much more equitable ratio.

Most encouragingly, researchers from less prestigious institutions saw their chances improve markedly. The relative advantage for those from institutions outside the top rankings increased from 0.60-0.83 times the average during unblinded reviews to 0.81–0.93 times with blinded reviews.

This shift meant that innovative ideas from junior faculty at less prestigious institutions, which might previously have been overlooked due to institutional bias, now had a better chance of being funded on their own merits.

Statistical Analysis Confirms the Impact of Change

To ensure their findings were robust, the team conducted detailed statistical analyses. They found that during unblinded reviews, the relationship between institutional prestige and application success was highly statistically significant across all ranking systems used.

After implementing blinding, this relationship weakened considerably. The effect size, measured by a statistical tool called Cramer’s V, decreased from an average of 0.20 (medium effect) during unblinded reviews to 0.13 (small effect) with blinded reviews.

Importantly, these changes carried through to final funding decisions. Before blinding, about 75% of awards went to applicants from the top 25 ranked institutions. After blinding, this dropped to about 45%, allowing more opportunities for excellent scientists at other institutions.

Gender Bias Not Found in Either Review System

The research team also examined whether their review process showed any gender bias, either before or after blinding. Interestingly, they found no evidence of gender bias in either period. The success rates for male and female applicants closely matched their application rates throughout all stages of review.

This finding adds nuance to the broader discussion of bias in science funding. While institutional prestige bias was clearly present and addressable through blinding, gender bias was not detected in this particular programme.

Practical Benefits Beyond Bias Reduction

Beyond the primary goal of reducing bias, the blinded review process brought unexpected practical benefits. Reviewers reported that blinded materials were easier to read and review. Panel discussions became more focused and efficient since reviewers could concentrate solely on the scientific merit of proposals.

Dr Hultgren’s team noted that compliance with blinding requirements was very high among applicants. The few proposals that failed to follow blinding rules were generally ineligible for other reasons, suggesting that implementing such policies need not create undue administrative burden.

Understanding the Limits of Bias Reduction

While the study showed clear benefits from blinding, it’s important to note that institutional differences were not completely eliminated. Dr Hultgren suggests this may reflect real advantages that well-resourced institutions provide to their faculty, such as better research infrastructure and support for grant writing.

The study period also coincided with COVID-19 disruptions, which led to fewer overall applications. However, the team found that the proportion of applications from different institutional categories remained consistent, suggesting this did not significantly impact their findings.

Looking Forward to Fairer Funding

Based on these positive results, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation has made blinded review a permanent feature of their young investigator programme and has also extended it to their postdoctoral fellowship programme. Dr Hultgren and her colleagues hope their findings will encourage other funding organisations to examine their own review processes. They suggest that blinding could be particularly valuable for early-career grant programmes, where institutional prestige bias might otherwise prevent promising young scientists from establishing independent research careers.

The team continues to monitor their application metrics and is working to increase outreach to institutions that may have fewer internal resources. They are also focusing on diversifying their reviewer pool to ensure multiple perspectives are included at all levels of the review process. This research provides compelling evidence that simple changes to review processes can help create a more equitable funding landscape in science. By reducing the influence of institutional prestige, funding organisations can better fulfil their mission of supporting the most innovative and promising research, regardless of where it originates.