Recent actions by former President Donald Trump to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in federally funded programs have sparked anxiety among researchers across the United States.
Kendra Dahmer, a postdoctoral researcher in infectious diseases at the University of California, Berkeley, is particularly concerned about the future of her research on intestinal parasites in India and Benin. Her work, which is supported by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, could be jeopardized due to its focus on diversity issues. The funding she received was partly based on her status as a first-generation college graduate and a woman in science.
The executive order targeting DEI puts Dahmer’s research in limbo, as it could affect funding for studies focusing on specific populations deemed related to DEI. “Research on HIV in Africa, or malaria, which occurs predominantly in low- and middle-income countries, might now be scrutinized under these new guidelines,” Dahmer stated. These diseases have significant global impact, killing hundreds of thousands annually, highlighting the critical nature of this research.
Shortly after the executive order was signed on January 21, the federal government called for a freeze on funds to conduct an ideological review of all grants and loans. This move caused immediate chaos, which was slightly alleviated after judicial intervention halted the freeze, allowing agencies like the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to resume grant allocations. Nevertheless, uncertainty persists as the NSF continues to review projects to ensure compliance with existing executive orders.
New and existing NIH grants are under scrutiny, further heightening concerns. Institutions that rely on these funds, like historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), face significant risks. For example, the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the largest HBCU in the nation, has worked hard to achieve R1 status, a Carnegie Foundation recognition for high research activity. Professor Joseph Graves noted that interference with federal funding could slow down these efforts considerably. Inadequate heating in the biology department’s facilities exemplifies ongoing challenges faced by students.
Moreover, altering grants policy might reduce indirect cost payments crucial for covering operational expenses in universities. This policy change could create substantial budgetary shortfalls, affecting schools that depend heavily on federal research funds.
Concerns extend to various domains, including AI research addressing racial biases, health equity studies, and literacy research in urban communities. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, noted that these projects are vital for addressing societal inequities but are now uncertain due to the executive order.
Historically black colleges, which already confront underfunding compared to predominantly white institutions, might lose a lifeline if DEI-related research funding is cut. These institutions play a crucial role in providing opportunities for minority students, and threats to their funding could undermine this mission. Graves voiced concerns that the Trump administration’s stance on DEI might target these schools because of their student demographics and their efforts in broadening scientific participation.
The uncertainty surrounding DEI-related funding continues to loom large over the academic and research communities. As federal agencies proceed with their reviews and adjustments, the impact on research, particularly in institutions focusing on minority representation and equity, remains to be fully understood.
