Applications for a prestigious National Institutes of Health grant program that supports Ph.D. students from marginalized backgrounds are abruptly being pulled from consideration during grant review sessions, according to scientists in those discussions, imperiling the journey into scientific careers for many young researchers. 

The actions comply with the Trump administration’s new executive orders that forbid federal agencies from supporting activities promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility. Trump issued the orders in his first days in office, saying that DEI efforts are now illegal, and discriminatory themselves. 

On Jan. 24, the NIH website suddenly showed the application window had expired for these F-31 diversity grants. This week, as scientists resumed meetings to evaluate assorted grant proposals after the administration relaxed its freeze on communications, the reviewers were told they should not consider the diversity grants for this funding cycle.

“It’s a very unsettling moment for science, because it is unclear how the support systems, the resources and the makeup of the scientific community, is going to change as a function of these federal directives on diversity,” said Brian Nosek, the director of the Center for Open Science, a nonprofit with the goal of improving scientific integrity. “It is actively discriminating against the people for whom a lot of the diversity and inclusion initiatives were created in the first place because of the historical challenges they’ve faced.”

It is possible the applicants to the diversity program would be eligible for other training grants that support all researchers, but the soonest they could be considered for the broader grants is in four months. 

While the F-31 diversity grant is used to support doctoral research, other NIH diversity supplements that supported technicians, postdoctoral research, young faculty members, and the mentoring of high school students, also appear to have been ended; web pages describing these programs have been disabled. 

The F-31 diversity supplements, more formally called NIH predoctoral fellowship awards for minority students, provide five years of funding for research leading to a Ph.D or equivalent degree, paying for tuition, fees, health insurance, support to a home institution, and a stipend for living expenses; they typically total between $40,000 and $50,000 a year. The program was open to students of all races because it included researchers who were disabled, from rural areas, or from poor economic backgrounds.

One member of an upcoming study section was told by his scientific review officer, an NIH employee who oversees the study section, to not evaluate two grants he was initially set to review because they were F-31 diversity applications. An email shared with the study section, and seen by STAT, lists the types of awards they were set to review. Under the F-31 diversity section, in red type was written “These applications were removed.” 

Other grants that use the word “diversity” are also being set aside. One researcher who submitted applications for R01 funding, which is awarded to lab leaders to support large research projects, was told the applications, which were supposed to be reviewed by the end of February, would no longer be considered, according to emails shared with STAT.  

“The NIH is making vulnerable populations even more at risk while giving those with greater opportunities an even stronger advantage. How is this fair? Instead of closing the gap, we are widening disparities between those in need and those with privileged access to resources,” that researcher, who requested anonymity in fear of endangering future funding from federal agencies, said. They added that, as an early-career principal investigator, their lab is on track to run out of funding this fall. 

“It is an ugly situation,” said Donna Ginther, an economist who directs the Institute for Policy & Social Research at the University of Kansas and has studied how race and gender influence success in science. “I think there’s a lot of disappointment around the country.” 

STAT asked NIH officials for comment but received no reply. 

News of the NIH action comes the same week the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the nation’s largest private supporter of biomedical research, ended a program to make undergraduate STEM programs more inclusive.

Melissa Simon, a professor and OB-GYN at Northwestern Medicine, who has been struggling with the possibility that federal funding for her own research on women’s health, family planning, and marginalized communities will evaporate, said it was an important time for university leaders to step in to support the training of students and research topics that the government will not. “Leadership of academic institutions needs to come to terms with the fact the funding is on very thin, broken ice with respect to diversity and equity and health equity that are so important to continue but are not going to be supported over the next four years.” 

The program for doctoral students dates back to 1989 and was intended to help diversify the biomedical research workforce. Studies have shown funding of other diversity supplements had been underutilized but was increasing. Between 2005 and 2020, the number of diversity supplements awarded for all programs grew from 2 to 455, according to a study published in JAMA. 

Black researchers are awarded NIH funding at lower rates than white scientists and make up just 2% of NIH senior researchers. Research shows the NIH funding gap may have narrowed in recent years, in part because more funds are going to institutes where Black researchers are more likely to apply for grants, and possibly because of programs including diversity supplements. But that gap still exists.  

“Why is this important?” asked Ginther. “If we limit the people who can do biomedical research then we are not supporting a society that’s becoming — whether we like or not — more diverse. And when we limit research by certain people, or on certain topics, we are leaving discoveries on the table.” 

The grants can be a major boost to careers. “I’ve had two diversity supplements and they’ve been an incredibly important part of my career,” said Rachel Hardeman, who directs the Center for Antiracism Research for Health Equity at the University of Minnesota. “It can mean the difference between having a tenure track position or not.” 

People are already organizing against the moves. Jeremy Berg, the former editor of Science who has been an active voice protesting the new administration’s impact on science, is asking applicants who had submitted diversity grants to contact him. 

Even if they successfully apply for the broader grant program, they’ll miss at least one four-month cycle, making it harder for some students to continue in their programs, Berg told STAT. “Obviously this is sending a pretty clear and fairly chilling message to students who are eligible to that program about how welcoming this career path is going to be.”

Many scientists discussing the impact of the change on social media noted that the removal of the diversity grants from consideration means candidates who are not considered diverse or having faced serious life challenges would now have a higher chance of receiving the F-31 grants, considered among the most prestigious for graduate training. 

Ginther said the F-31 grants helped accelerate science careers and often lead to bigger NIH grants after recipients receive their degrees and become full-fledged researchers. “If you get early NIH training, it builds throughout your career.” But she noted that the prestigious awards (for both regular and diversity grants) had an award rate of less than 30%, which meant many students can, and do, continue to pursue doctoral degrees and research careers without this particular grant and are supported in other ways by universities and other institutions. 

“This is an unfortunate situation,” she said, “But it’s important to say it’s not the end of the world.” 

Simon, who is Latina, agreed that students from marginalized groups should not be hearing the message that they are not wanted — or needed — in science due to the new administration’s actions because they very much are. “I would say not to give up,” she said. “Understand there is more than one pathway to accomplish your goal.”