Opinion: Science under review

By Ananya Jain, Behavioral Neuroscience, 2025

In the vehicle of scientific discovery, funding is the fuel, and policy sets the course.

Science thrives on questions, but when funding dictates which questions can be asked, the pursuit of knowledge begins to narrow.

Recent directives from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), influenced by executive orders, have highlighted the intricate relationship between politics and science. By scrutinizing pending grants for flagged terms related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), these agencies illuminate how policy decisions can subtly steer the trajectory of scientific inquiry.

NPR’s Jonathan Lambert attributes the words on this list to Senator Ted Cruz’s October 2024 report, in which he relabeled DEI as “Division, Extremism, Ideology” in order to criticize the NSF grants approved under the Biden–Harris administration.

Reviewing about 43,000 grants per year, the NSF has now paused grants containing words like “female,” “ethnicity,” and “socioeconomic,” just to name a few.

Consider the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), which recently removed terms like “equity” from its website to align with these directives, prompting protests from its members. Few institutions like the American College of Physicians (ACP) have voiced strong opposition to such policies, emphasizing the importance of diversity–focused research in addressing health inequities. These responses highlight an ongoing dialogue within the scientific community, balancing inclusive research values while respecting executive motions. 

The impact of these decisions is particularly relevant for future physicians like myself. Medicine evolves through evidence–based research, often originating from federally funded studies. When research into DEI–related health disparities, mental health, or gender–specific medical responses is curtailed, it directly affects the quality of care that future doctors can offer.

Discouraging such research grants risks harming underrepresented communities and perpetuating existing healthcare gaps. 

Research on maternal mortality rates in the U.S. has shown significant disparities among racial groups, with Black women experiencing rates nearly three times higher than their white counterparts. Studies examining mental health outcomes among LGBTQ+ youth reveal that inclusive policies and supportive environments drastically reduce risks of depression and suicide. Gender–specific research has illuminated critical differences in cardiovascular disease symptoms and treatment responses between men and women, leading to improved diagnostic protocols and outcomes. Studies on sex–based differences in drug metabolism have refined medication dosages, preventing overdosing in women, who historically were underrepresented in clinical trials. Research on workplace diversity has demonstrated how inclusive environments improve productivity and reduce turnover, strengthening the economy.

While policy and science have always been intertwined, their current dynamics warrant attention. Historically, political influence on science isn’t new — from constraints on climate research to barriers faced by AIDS studies in the 1980s. The U.S. population is 50.5% women, 41.6% people of color, and 11.1% low–income. When considering these populations is encouraged, it improves outcomes across the board. The danger now is not only in losing funding for specific projects, but in setting a precedent that undermines the very purpose of scientific inquiry: to question, to investigate, and to uncover truths that lead to a healthier, united society.