02027nas a2200397   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043653002400058653003000082653001100112653004100123653002600164653001700190653001100207653002300218653003000241653001800271653002600289653001600315653001200331653001500343653000900358653001600367653001100383653002000394100002100414700001600435700001300451700002800464245015500492300001100647490000700658520095000665022001401615       2021                            d  c2021-04-3010aBiomedical Research10aBlack or African American10aHumans10aNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)10aPeer Review, Research10aRace Factors10aRacism10aResearch Personnel10aResearch Support as Topic10aUnited States10aComputational Biology10adisparities10aFunding10agovernment10anone10apeer review10apolicy10asystems biology1 aMichael S. Lauer1 aJamie Doyle1 aJoy Wang1 aDeepshikha Roychowdhury00aAssociations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health  ae671730 v103 aA previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') between 2011 and 2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black ('AAB') Principal Investigators ('PIs') skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or 'awarded'). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to topic-related biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers ('ICs'). In a re-analysis, we find that 10% of 148 topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on 'AAB Preferred' topics were funded at lower rates, but peer review outcomes were similar. The lower rate of funding for these topics was primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates, not to peer-reviewer preferences.  a2050-084X