1 Introduction

The allocation of research funds is a complex and multifaceted process, with practices varying widely across funding agencies. While many organisations have introduced equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) criteria to promote fairness in funding decisions, persistent gaps remain. Moreover, definitions of diversity and underrepresentation differ based on grant types, geographic regions and career stages, adding further complexity. With EDI policies under rising political scrutiny, active efforts to dismantle established frameworks and increasing public scepticism, there is an urgent need to adopt a scientific, evidence-based approach to counteract criticism and guarantee the fair and effective allocation of research funding. Without rigorous evaluation and transparent decision-making, funding inequities risk becoming entrenched, limiting the diversity of thought essential for innovation. Understanding how funding agencies integrate EDI into their processes and identifying strategies that work is therefore critical to safeguarding fairness, accountability and scientific excellence.

Drawing on their insights, the article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of their diverse perspectives and current efforts towards enhancing EDI in allocating funding for scientific research.

2 Approach

In the context of research funding, EDI strives to advance three key aspirations aimed at fostering a more robust research ecosystem: (1) Everyone has a fair and equal chance to compete for funding based on the merit of their research proposal and responsible research assessment. (2) The allocation of research funding should reflect a diverse range of research proposals, reflecting the diversity of the populations they serve. (3) By fostering diverse perspectives and approaches, research becomes more innovative and relevant to a wider segment of society. Our interviews focus on three pivotal dimensions: (1) definitions and importance given to EDI in research funding, (2) metrics for assessing and measuring progress in EDI and (3) selection procedures and strategies for mitigating bias. We summarise how leading organisations define and prioritise diversity, delving into the comprehensiveness and sophistication of their approaches to promote EDI measures. We explore the usage of metrics to foster fairness and inclusion to probe the scope and impact of EDI initiatives. Additionally, we investigate how organisations handle their selection processes, focusing on structural integrity, transparency and efficacy in curbing biases. Our overall assessment offers insights into the key open challenges in promoting EDI, how different organisations aim to tackle the issue, and which aspects they consider key priorities from their unique perspectives.

3 Definitions and Importance Given to EDI in Research Funding

In recent years, the principles of EDI have gained significant traction within the scientific community, compelling funding agencies and institutions to prioritise these fundamental values. However, these efforts largely focus on gender diversity without adopting an intersectional approach and often overlook the wider structures of inequality and gendered power relations in academia (Steinþórsdóttir et al. 2021). Despite strides in recognising EDI's importance, substantial gaps persist in funding. Research consistently shows that underrepresented researchers, including women, people of colour, LGBTQIA+ individuals and disabled individuals, receive significantly less grant funding throughout the broader funding landscape (Tabak and Collins 2011; Van Der Lee and Ellemers 2015; Choudhury and Aggarwal 2020; Swenor et al. 2020; Taffe and Gilpin 2021; Chen et al. 2022; Cruz-Castro et al. 2023; Schmaling and Gallo 2023). This underscores the critical need for a transparent and evidence-based evaluation process to assess the effectiveness of policies and action plans designed to advance equity in the distribution of research funding.

To fully grasp the scope of ongoing challenges, it is crucial to first recognise the multitude, complexity and intersectional inequalities that underrepresented groups face within the research landscape. Women, people of colour and individuals with disabilities are just a few examples of marginalised communities that continue to face significant obstacles in the current system. Researchers and professors from indigenous, black and other racially and ethnically marginalised groups remain underrepresented and underfunded across many research institutions (Allen et al. 2000; Hoppe et al. 2019; Gibney 2022, 2024; Kozlowski et al. 2022; Nguyen et al. 2023; Paliwal 2023). In countries where caste systems are a prominent basis for social stratification—such as in South Asia—scholars from underprivileged caste backgrounds face similar structural barriers to representation and funding. Both groups are often disproportionately burdened with additional service responsibilities related to diversity and inclusion efforts, which can detract from their academic productivity and career advancement (Trejo 2020; Odedina and Stern 2021). One critical aspect of the research funding process where disparities persist is in grant allocations. Particularly, underrepresented groups continue to face significant challenges that negatively impact their long-term career prospects. These disparities not only hinder individual progress but also hamper the scientific community's ability to benefit from diverse perspectives, insights and expertise. Thus, addressing these inequities in grant funding allocation is an urgent priority.

4 Metrics for Assessing and Measuring Progress in EDI

Metrics play a pivotal role in tracking progress towards achieving EDI objectives in research and funding processes. While metrics are not necessarily easy to define, establishing measurable indicators is critical to track the effectiveness of initiatives to enhance equity and diversity. These metrics should be transparent and comprehensive, encompassing various dimensions such as representation, career progression, compensation and funding allocations. Transparent and robust metrics will allow the scientific community to identify persisting gaps, measure ongoing changes and hold funding agencies and institutions accountable for their commitment to EDI. By embracing such metrics to monitor and track progress, we can ensure that research funding processes steadily become more equitable, diverse and inclusive, leading to a more vibrant and impactful scientific community.

The most recommended approach for transparency involves collecting and publicising demographic data on applicants and grantees by gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disability status and location from organisations that allocate grants for neuroscience research (Choudhury and Aggarwal 2020; Llorens et al. 2021; Franko et al. 2022). Some funding agencies set and publish targets or quotas for grant applicants, success rates and amounts awarded (Schrouff et al. 2019). It is also important to explore metrics beyond basic demographics and beyond representation. These include metrics that track the diversity of research topics funded, the diversity of research teams funded, the career progression of researchers from underrepresented groups who receive funding, the effectiveness of interventions (e.g., mentoring and targeted funding initiatives) implemented and the impact of research funded.

There is a lack of global standardisation in how data is collected and categorised. This makes comparisons between funding agencies in different countries challenging. While the United States has nationally defined demographic subcategories from the US Census and a less restrictive approach to data collection, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets high standards for consent, and certain countries have strict privacy laws that prohibit collecting data on protected characteristics like race or ethnicity. Moreover, placing additional data collection burdens on researchers can discourage them from applying for grants. Finding the right balance is challenging—collecting meaningful data in a cost-effective and culturally sensitive way to track EDI progress while respecting privacy rights and avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens on researchers.

5 Selection Procedures and Strategies for Mitigating Bias

The selection process and evaluation of research grant proposals are pivotal in ensuring the fair distribution of research funding. Traditionally, these processes have relied on peer review, merit-based assessments and predefined criteria. Bias in grant proposal review processes, often stemming from perceptions of researchers' capability, the perceived worthiness of research topics for funding and biases against minority-serving institutions in the United States, disproportionately impacts minority scientists, leading to career shifts or exits from academia (Ginther et al. 2011; Hoppe et al. 2019; Lauer and Roychowdhury 2021). A few tested and recommended actions implemented by various funding agencies to mitigate gender bias include setting and publishing targets for grant applicants, success rates and award amounts, creating funding mechanisms based solely on the merit of scientific proposals, raising awareness of potential gender bias among review committees through bias training and making demographic information of former grantees publicly accessible (Llorens et al. 2021). Second-level reviews offer a crucial opportunity for funders to address biases and prioritise research benefiting underserved communities, contributing to the diversification of the biomedical workforce (Odedina and Stern 2021). While these methods have been and continue to be effective in many cases, they have limitations, including the potential for reviewer bias.

In recent years, there has been a growing push for approaches that aim at minimising biases in both the selection and evaluation process. One such approach is the adoption of double-blind reviews, wherein the identities of both the applicant and the reviewers are concealed from each other. This aims to reduce bias and promote objectivity in the evaluation process, ultimately striving for a more equitable allocation of research grants. However, implementing double-blind reviews can pose challenges and require careful planning. As a result, this approach is still used sparingly within the research grant evaluation landscape. Blinding reviewers to applicant identity is also seen to have a minimal impact on reducing bias, in part because such review is rarely truly blind—reviewers can frequently infer the applicant's identity. This underscores the need for further evaluation of peer review models to mitigate the influence of applicant identity (Nakamura et al. 2021; Taffe and Gilpin 2021; Hultgren et al. 2024). Another intriguing development is the consideration of randomisation in grant proposal review. This method involves assigning proposals randomly to reviewers, aiming to minimise potential bias and subjectivity. While randomisation has its advantages, such as reducing reviewer bias, it may also raise concerns about the quality and expertise of reviewers for specific proposals. To strike a balance between tradition and innovation, some organisations are exploring the possibility of combining both standard and recent approaches in their grant proposal evaluation processes. This hybrid approach aims to harness the benefits of established practices while also incorporating elements like double-blind reviews and randomisation to enhance fairness, equity and the overall quality of final decisions about grant allocations. Unconscious bias training provides an alternative method for tackling biases, yet its effectiveness in mitigating biases in the reviewing process presents a mixed picture, indicating the need for further investigation and improvement (Bezrukova et al. 2016) Table 1.

6 Approaches by Funding Organisations

7 Discussion

Challenges such as gender bias, the underrepresentation of minority groups and geographic disparities are not confined to individual funding agencies but reflect broader societal and political dynamics. In Europe, EU-funded initiatives such as JPND, ERA-NET NEURON and ERC play key roles in addressing these disparities, but their impact remains limited without strong national commitments to strengthening scientific infrastructure, increasing research investments and fostering an inclusive research culture. The European Union must continue to integrate and support underrepresented regions, including widening countries, to ensure a balanced research landscape.

However, ongoing political efforts to systematically dismantle EDI policies in research funding pose a significant threat to these advancements. In the United States, recent legislative and executive actions have sought to reduce or even eliminate funding for EDI-focused research projects and grants, reflecting a broader political push to reverse policies aimed at fostering inclusivity in scientific inquiry. Such actions not only risk exacerbating existing disparities but also undermine the evidence-based rationale for equitable funding distribution. The erosion of EDI policies could have far-reaching consequences, limiting access to research opportunities, undermining international collaboration, narrowing the diversity of thought in scientific endeavours and reducing the societal impact of research.

Continued support for EDI in research funding must be grounded in rigorous, evidence-based approaches to counteract political opposition and ensure sustained progress. Transparent data collection, standardised metrics and systematic evaluation of existing policies are crucial to demonstrating the effectiveness and necessity of these initiatives. Without sustained commitment and a data-driven justification of inclusive funding practices, the progress made over the past decades is at risk of being reversed, hindering both scientific innovation and equitable participation in research. Sustained global engagement with diverse funding bodies is crucial to ensuring that EDI strategies remain inclusive, internationally relevant and resilient to political shifts. This includes engaging with major funders in high-income countries, such as the United States—given its significant influence on global research priorities—as well as strengthening partnerships with agencies in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where efforts to build research capacity and equitable collaboration are needed.

Growing awareness among major research funders of their role in perpetuating systemic biases has triggered a conscious shift toward promoting EDI in research funding over the last decades (Bailey et al. 2021; Richardson et al. 2021; Wild 2022). This acknowledgement marks a critical step toward addressing and rectifying persistent inequities within the scientific community. Many funding agencies have already implemented EDI-focused measures, showing notable progress and positive impacts (Charlesworth and Banaji 2019; Choudhury and Aggarwal 2020; Hunt et al. 2022). Recognising the value of diverse perspectives, funders are increasingly integrating EDI principles into their grant-making processes.

Several initiatives illustrate this shift. For instance, the Wellcome Trust has created the Equitable Funding Practice Library, a curated resource of methods, models and practices used by funders to address systemic inequities (Wellcome Trust 2022). Wellcome has also established an LMIC Advisory Group to help shape its funding policies and recently launched a new funding scheme to support scientists of Black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani heritage in the UK (Wellcome 2024). The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has introduced measures to enhance gender equity in its Investigator Grants, including a policy that guarantees 50% of all Leadership and Emerging Leadership fellowships are awarded to women or non-binary applicants—a firm quota that sets a strong precedent for other funding agencies (Measures Introduced by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] 2022). Harvard University's FD&D Research Enabling Grant supports researchers navigating work/life challenges, ensuring continued academic productivity despite personal circumstances (Harvard University n.d.). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) established Diversity Supplements to existing grants, aiming to improve workforce diversity by providing funding opportunities for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. Clear evidence shows that these supplements have led to increased research productivity, higher publication and award rates, career advancement for underrepresented scientists and institutional gains through additional funding and salary support for trainees (Hill et al. 2021; Gholami et al. 2025). Despite these benefits, the programme has historically been underutilised, and comprehensive long-term outcome data remain limited. As of early 2025, there are indications that the programme may have been discontinued or suspended due to recent policy changes—a concerning development given its demonstrable value in fostering diversity in biomedical research. The Health Research Alliance, which works with funders and those working in research policy, recommends tailored strategies for inclusive grant-making to better support diverse applicants (Franko et al. 2022). More recently, the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) published a detailed assessment of gender dynamics in academia, examining the outcomes of multiple targeted initiatives to promote women's participation and advancement at both the national and regional levels in Switzerland (Joyce et al. 2024).

Efforts to integrate EDI into funding structures and grant-making processes are beginning to show tangible results. Reports from the ERC reveal encouraging progress, with an increased share of women grantees and success rates now comparable to those of men. Application rates across grant categories have also improved, with 2023 figures showing that women submitted 40% of Starting Grant, 36% of Consolidator Grant and 25% of Advanced Grant proposals, which is the highest participation in the Advanced Grant category to date. However, the consistently lower number of applications from women across all schemes, and the decline in participation with career progression, highlight ongoing challenges in retaining women applicants. Early signs of progress are also evident in the Wellcome Trust's 2023/2024 Accelerator Awards, which specifically targeted underrepresented groups and resulted in increased funding for women, disabled researchers and individuals from black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic minority backgrounds compared to the 2022/2023 cycle. Similarly, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)'s 2020/2021 data point to improvements in closing ethnicity-based award gaps. For example, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) reported a 24% award rate for white applicants and 21% for Asian applicants over 5 years, reflecting a narrowing of earlier disparities.

Despite these positive steps, significant challenges remain, and in some instances, progress is at risk of being reversed. Recent political efforts targeting NIH funding for EDI-focused initiatives exemplify this threat, jeopardizing gains made in fostering diversity and inclusion in research. One key issue is the lack of clear benchmarks for assessing diversity and inclusion in grant allocation. Are funded projects actually increasing participation from underrepresented groups? Are research teams becoming more diverse? A lack of controls makes it difficult to hold funders accountable for achieving their stated diversity goals. However, it is not the only issue. Reviewers and decision-makers might have unconscious biases that disadvantage proposals from diverse researchers. Currently, reports on disparities in research funding across resource-constrained countries focus primarily on women's underrepresentation, neglecting other factors that influence career trajectories (Jackson et al. 2022). Gender disparity, for instance, becomes more pronounced at senior academic levels, illustrated by the ‘scissor-shaped’ curve, where women are underrepresented at more advanced career stages, such as faculty and tenured positions. Funding agencies have the power to either perpetuate or mitigate this pattern through their policies, priorities and support mechanisms for women at early career stages (Llorens et al. 2021; Joyce et al. 2024). Another challenge is the lack of standardised definitions for diversity and underrepresentation to provide clarity and consistency across agencies and grant programmes. Invisible forms of underrepresentation, such as disabilities or the impact of parental leave, are often overlooked. Access to high-quality, comparable demographic data from applicants and grantees provided by funding agencies is also limited, which hampers the ability to track progress effectively.

To address these challenges, several concrete solutions can be proposed. Developing and sharing key universal standardised metrics for tracking EDI progress would facilitate meaningful comparisons and benchmarking between agencies. Such metrics must account for local contexts, including factors like national funding levels, the critical mass of scientists, language barriers and technological and knowledge divides. Diversifying review panels and implementing bias-mitigation training can help promote fairness in grant assessments. Adopting double-blind peer reviews and randomisation measures can further reduce bias in the evaluation process. Alternative models such as partially randomised funding allocations, where proposals that meet a predefined quality threshold enter a lottery, can also enhance fairness and transparency (Fang and Casadevall 2016). Random allocation within a pool of high-quality proposals may help mitigate systemic biases, reduce the administrative burden on reviewers and increase diversity in funded research by supporting innovative, high-risk projects that might otherwise be overlooked. Some countries have begun implementing lottery-based approaches to research funding, with New Zealand leading the way through its Health Research Council's Explorer Grant scheme (Liu et al. 2020). The SNSF uses a transparent lottery as a tiebreaker for equally ranked proposals (Severin et al. 2020; Singh Chawla 2021), while the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) has similarly adopted randomisation to ensure fairness and reduce evaluator bias when decisions are otherwise too close to call. These models have attracted international attention as potential methods to enhance equity and reduce bias once proposals meet a defined quality threshold.

However, procedural reforms alone are not sufficient to achieve meaningful EDI outcomes. Establishing support systems, such as mentorship programmes, grant-writing workshops and webinars for underrepresented groups, would help level the playing field for demystifying and navigating the application process. Shifting the focus from short-term outputs to long-term outcomes, such as diversifying the research workforce and expanding research topics, is essential. Funding agencies should conduct rigorous evaluations of their EDI initiatives to ensure they are achieving their intended goals. While private foundations benefit from their flexibility to tailor initiatives to specific groups or causes, public funding sources, constrained by national priorities and regulations, may find it advantageous to establish common definitions and standards to enhance their capacity to effectively address their EDI goals.

Acknowledging that underrepresentation extends beyond numerical scarcity to the nuanced experiences of marginalised groups is crucial. The ALBA Network, for instance, offers a more inclusive definition of underrepresentation that considers regional specificities and systemic barriers often overlooked in guidelines issued by renowned funding agencies. These include challenges faced by non-native English speakers, first-generation scientists, individuals with limited travel privileges or those displaced by forced migration (https://www.alba.network/mission). ALBA also offers guidance for reviewers serving on its award selection committees to mitigate bias by considering unconventional career trajectories, evaluating intersectional factors contributing to disadvantage, contextualising achievements, recognising language proficiency challenges and acknowledging global variations in academic formats and timelines.

One significant barrier to promoting EDI in research funding is the reluctance of funding agencies to share their strategies, approaches and data, often due to concerns about backlash. To counter this, we advocate for collaborative approaches to funding data sharing, from the local to the global level. By maintaining long-term data collection and analysis, we can facilitate tracking and benchmarking and empower individual institutions to set and achieve their own EDI goals. The Research on Research Institute's Funder Data Platform (FDP) is a valuable tool in this regard, offering a secure and flexible infrastructure for funders to share and analyse data collaboratively.

In summary, while funding agencies have taken positive steps toward promoting EDI in research funding allocation, there is still a need for standardisation, rigorous evaluation and greater transparency to ensure these efforts are truly effective and inclusive. Agencies should continue refining their approaches to create a more equitable and diverse research landscape. Though challenges persist, clear progress is evident as organisations actively explore innovative approaches to enhance fairness and equity. Each has its unique strategies for doing so, such as Dana's shift towards Neuroscience and Society, JPND's focus on geographic underrepresentation, ERA-NET NEURON's ‘widening concept’ and ERC's transparency initiatives. The commitment of all these agencies offers hope for a more inclusive future where research funding benefits from a broader range of perspectives and talents.

Persistent issues such as gender bias, limited inclusion of minority groups and uneven geographic representation reflect broader societal and political challenges that individual organisations alone cannot fully resolve. Broader, coordinated efforts are essential. While EU-funded initiatives such as JPND, ERA-NET NEURON and ERC play key roles, their impact will remain limited without active participation from national governments and strong support from the EU. To achieve meaningful progress, individual countries must strengthen their scientific infrastructure, increase research investments and cultivate a culture that prioritises research relevance. These actions should be accompanied by a strong EU commitment to integrate and support underrepresented regions, also known as widening countries, to ensure a more inclusive and balanced research landscape.

It is important to note that the perspectives presented here are largely Eurocentric, with feedback obtained from organisations based in the EU and United States. We reached out specifically to funders (charitable foundations and national agencies) within these regions. However, some did not respond, and others expressed concerns about potential repercussions, which limited their participation; one organisation in fact withdrew its participation from this initiative altogether, requesting that their contribution be removed from the manuscript. We recognise the limitations of this approach and emphasise the importance of future engagement with funding organisations in regions beyond Europe and the United States to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of international diversity challenges.

Author Contributions

Sarah Ruediger: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Laurence Ris: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, writing – review and editing. Keerthana Iyer: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.