Die Studie legt nahe, dass die Welle der Kündigungen von NIH-Zuschüssen durch die Trump-Regierung im Jahr 2025 schwarze, indigene und andere Minderheitenforscher sowie Wissenschaftler aus sexuellen und geschlechtsspezifischen Minderheitengemeinschaften überproportional betroffen hat
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/anti-science/nih-grant-terminations-had-outsized-effect-minority-researchers-data-suggest
25 Kommentare
>For the study, researchers led by a team at University of California, San Diego, sent surveys to 1,918 investigators with terminated grants. About half of the investigators (941) responded.
>Roughly 2,200 NIH grants were terminated after federal officials began dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and shifting agency priorities last year.
> The findings, published this week in The Lancet Regional Health Americas, showed that nearly half (48.6%) of investigators whose grants were terminated for equity-related reasons identified as BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color), while 60% of investigators whose grant terminations were “gender-related” identified as sexual or gender minorities (SGM), including 16.5% who identified as transgender or nonbinary.
> Among all investigators with terminated grants, relative to White men, BIPOC investigators were nearly three times as likely to receive an equity-related termination. BIPOC women and trans and nonbinary investigators were almost two times as likely to receive an equity-related termination, and those who identified as SGM were more than 11 times likelier to have a gender-related termination than cisgender White men.
> Some of the terminated grants were cut with the purported aim of combating antisemitism at specific universities. Roughly one in five investigators affected by “institutional terminations” are Jewish.
> Cuts could reshape research for decades
[Targeted termination of scientific grants and minoritised researcher status in a national survey: a cross sectional analysis – The Lancet Regional Health – Americas](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(26)00108-0/fulltext)
I dont think it was disproportionate if they were intentionally targeted
Yeah that was their goal
They literally published a list banning those words.
This is the least surprising thing.
I think my question would be if there’s a closer correlation between the type of research that’s having grants pulled.
I would guess that a lot of social science studies are having their grants pool as opposed to more traditional STEM type studies.
Not at all surprising. Of course gutting research about racial and sexual minorities (what they call “DEI”) is going to affect researchers who are racial and sexual minorities the most. That’s just what the administration wants.
As intended. This is Trump’s America. This is what Republicans want. Decent people need to get off their asses and vote in every election. We’re now dealing with the consequences of people not voting because the Democrat party doesn’t present their “perfect” candidate. We may never recover.
Vote for a nazi president, get nazi policies
>Roughly 2,200 NIH grants were terminated after federal officials began dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and shifting agency priorities last year.
Uhhh, isn’t the entire intention of DEI programs to (disproportionately) assist minorities? If you’re cutting DEI programs intended to funnel grant awards to minorities, those minorities are going to be affected most when the programs are shuttered and the grants are terminated.
They openly bragged about it
A **lot** of Republicans goals over the past 50 years has been to disrupt the African American middle class. They seem to be winning.
The awful thing about all the BS Trump is putting the country through is that while it only takes a couple of years for him to destroy everything, it will take decades to put it all back to some semblance of order. In the meanwhile the United States will sink to the bottom of the western nation pile. If we’re not already there.
Maybe electing the biggest assholes we could find was a mistake. Maybe.
What were the subject of research these grants were going to?
Was the research into DEI initiatives cut, or specific grants whose recipients are BIPOC? Because it seems to me as if the specific research in question is disproportionately conducted by BIPOC investigators.
Is there a lack of representation of BIPOC investigators in non-DEI research? That is an interesting fact, if true.
As a PhD graduate in gerontology, I have seen this firsthand. My colleague’s research on sexual/gender minorities has been pulled. A fellowship to which I belong, which promotes PhD completion in historically underserved races, eliminated. I’m optimistic for our future but presently there is an intentionall dismantling of science that causes discomfort with some White people for no other reason than it makes them uncomfortable.
Is it possible, and I’m just spitballing here, that the grants were originally GIVEN disproportionately to those same groups? So that even if you just cut randomly across the grants, you would disproportionately affect those groups?
I mean if you make everything about giving benefits to minorities in the first place obviously they’ll be the most affected when you remove any benefits, you don’t really need to target specific groups in your cuts for them to be the most affected if they where the most selected ones in the first place
„Study suggests Trump did what he said he would do.“
Surely that’s because NIH disproportionately awards grants to black, indigenous, and other minority researchers, as well as scientists from sexual and gender minority communities.
When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
That thing you just stumbled upon is called the point.
It’s a pretty heavy situation for the scientific community. The data coming out shows that the 2025 NIH grant terminations hit specific groups much harder than others. Research published in journals like PNAS and The Lancet indicates that BIPOC and LGBTQ+ scientists were disproportionately affected, often because the cuts targeted fields where these researchers are most active—like health equity, DEI initiatives, and gender studies.
For example, SGM researchers were statistically much more likely to see their funding pulled compared to their peers. There was also a significant impact on early-career scientists and women, whose projects were often smaller or tied to training awards that were easier to cut quickly.
Beyond the immediate loss of over $2 billion in research funding, the real concern is the long-term „chilling effect.“ Losing that many mentors and specialized projects could really shift the trajectory of American biomedical research for a long time. It’s definitely a major turning point in how federal science is being prioritized.
The grant terminations targeted DEI-related areas of study that were expanded in 2013. To say that BIPOCLBGTQ+ were disproportionately impacted is a tautology. I would be more interested to know if, outside of the early 2025 window but still under the Trump administration, whether areas that were not labeled DEI had similar disproportionate impact.
Nazis did the same thing before: Magnus Hirschfeld