Abstract

Demographic associations with receiving an ideologically motivated NIH grant termination

Rebecca Fielding-Miller, MSPH, PhD1, Natalie Vawter, MPH1, Nicholas Metheny, PhD, MPH, RN, FNE2, Sarah Peitzmeier, Phd, MSPH3, Laramie Smith4 and Abigail Hatcher, PhD5
(1)University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, (2)Emory University, Atlanta, GA, (3)University of Maryland, College Park, MD, (4)University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, (5)University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC

APHA 2025 Annual Meeting and Expo

Background

Between January 20 and May 30 2025, the National Institutes of Health terminated 1930 grants, singling out projects related to increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion and gender-identity. 600 grants were terminated as part of blanket, institution-wide terminations, purportedly to “combat anti-Semitism” [sic].

Objectives

Test a hypothesized association between the sexual, gender, and/or racial identity of NIH-funded investigators, and receiving an identity-focused grant termination related to “amorphous equity objectives” (AEO) or gender-identity.

Methods

1930 investigators with grant terminations documented in the Grant-Watch.us database were sent a unique link for a brief online demographic survey. We built 2 logistic regression models to assess the odds of receiving an identity-related termination (vs institutional blanket termination) for (1) under-represented racial minority (URM) PIs, and (2) sexual and gender minority (SGM) PIs. We modeled all grant terminations with a sub-analysis restricted to research grants only (excluding fellowships, training grants, and diversity supplements).

Results

926 investigators responded (48% response rate). Adjusting for career stage and gender, URM PIs were 4 times more likely to receive an AEO termination letter (aOR: 4.0, 95% CI: 2.7 - 6.03) and SGM investigators were 10.6 times more likely to receive a gender-identity termination letter (aOR: 10.6, 95% CI: 6.72 - 16.75). The effect sizes and statistical significance remained consistent in models restricted to research grants alone.

Conclusions

SGM and URM scientists have been differentially targeted by the current administration. Repairing the career pipeline will require similarly focused efforts to restore funding for SGM and URM investigators.

Administration, management, leadership Advocacy for health and health education Diversity and culture Public health or related laws, regulations, standards, or guidelines Public health or related public policy Public health or related research