What should be taken away from this study? They found in two tiers no notable difference, and a slight advantage to women in the other, with the effect growing over time.<p>Then they state that this is all correlation, and we don't know about a dozen or two different variables such as whether the grant process self selects for more men to apply (and thus fail). No conclusion that men are disadvantaged may be drawn, they say.<p>Is this study worth building on? Why are people finding it interesting enough to vote it up to the front page?<p>What am I missing?
Overcorrecting after eons of patriarchal dominance is expected and not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. In some countries (e.g. Sweden), prioritising a certain gender over another for research funding is explicit (and widely accepted) public policy.