  Recent studies have shown that the proposal peer review processes employed by
a variety of organizations to allocate astronomical telescope time produce
outcomes that are systematically biased depending on whether proposal's
principal investigator (PI) is a man or a woman. Using Canada-France-Hawaii
Telescope (CFHT) and Gemini Observatory proposal statistics from Canada over 10
recent proposal cycles, we assess whether or not the mean proposal scores
assigned by the National Research Council's (NRC's) Canadian Time Allocation
Committee (CanTAC) also correlate significantly with PI sex. Classical t-tests,
bootstrap and jackknife replications show that proposals submitted by women
were rated significantly worse than those submitted by men. We subdivide the
data in order to investigate sex-disaggregated statistics in relation to PI
career stage (faculty vs. non-faculty), telescope requested, scientific review
panel, observing semester, and the PhD year of faculty PIs. Consistent with the
bivariate results, a multivariate regression analysis controlling for other
covariates confirmed that PI sex is the only significant predictor of proposal
rating scores for the sample as a whole, although differences emerge for
proposals submitted by faculty and non-faculty PIs. While further research is
needed to explain our results, it is possible that implicit social cognition is
at work. NRC and CanTAC have taken steps to mitigate this possibility by
altering proposal author lists in order to conceal the PI's identity among
co-investigators. We recommend that the impact of this measure on mitigating
bias in future observing semesters be quantitatively assessed using statistical
techniques such as those employed here.
