2 weeks Ago
The future for scientists holding or applying for National Science Foundation, National Institutes ...
[+] of Health and other federal grants and contracts is cloudy right now. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) Apparently, if you have the words “women” or “female” somewhere in your grant proposal to a federal agency like the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, watch out. Your proposal may now get flagged for additional scrutiny.
It’s not clear what exactly might happen, whether your NSF, NIH or whatever proposal will get rejected, your funding will be yanked or your work will be censored as a result. But is this a case where you would have been better off using terms like “those others” or “someone who told you to put the toilet seat down” instead of “women” or “female”? Apparently, there’s a whole bunch of terms in addition to “women” and “female” that may trigger such a review. Karen Yourish, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Isaac White and Lazaro Gamio compiled the following list for the New York Times after poring over a bunch of government memos that they had obtained: accessible activism activists advocacy advocate advocates affirming care all-inclusive allyship anti-racism antiracist assigned at birth assigned female at birth assigned male at birth at risk barrier barriers belong bias biased biased toward biases biases towards biologically female biologically male BIPOC Black breastfeed + people breastfeed + person chestfeed + people chestfeed + person clean energy climate crisis climate science commercial sex worker community diversity community equity confirmation bias cultural competence cultural differences cultural heritage cultural sensitivity culturally appropriate culturally responsive DEI DEIA DEIAB DEIJ disabilities disability discriminated discrimination discriminatory disparity diverse diverse backgrounds diverse communities diverse community diverse group diverse groups diversified diversify diversifying diversity enhance the diversity enhancing diversity environmental quality equal opportunity equality equitable equitableness equity ethnicity excluded exclusion expression female females feminism fostering inclusivity GBV gender gender based gender based violence gender diversity gender identity gender ideology gender-affirming care genders Gulf of Mexico hate speech health disparity health equity hispanic minority historically identity immigrants implicit bias implicit biases inclusion inclusive inclusive leadership inclusiveness inclusivity increase diversity increase the diversity indigenous community inequalities inequality inequitable inequities inequity injustice institutional intersectional intersectionality key groups key people key populations Latinx LGBT LGBTQ marginalize marginalized men who have sex with men mental health minorities minority most risk MSM multicultural Mx Native American non-binary nonbinary oppression oppressive orientation people + uterus people-centered care person-centered person-centered care polarization political pollution pregnant people pregnant person pregnant persons prejudice privilege privileges promote diversity promoting diversity pronoun pronouns prostitute race race and ethnicity racial racial diversity racial identity racial inequality racial justice racially racism segregation sense of belonging sex sexual preferences sexuality social justice sociocultural socioeconomic status stereotype stereotypes systemic systemically they/them trans transgender transsexual trauma traumatic tribal unconscious bias underappreciated underprivileged underrepresentation underrepresented underserved undervalued victim victims vulnerable populations women women and underrepresented Umm, these aren’t exactly don’t-ever-say-it-in-public words like the f-word and “amazeballs.
” Quite the contrary. For example, why is “bias” on the list when everyone who is human has biases? Moreover, it might be really hard to conduct research on trauma and be a trauma specialist when you are worried about even uttering the word. And who knew that female would become an f-word in the eyes of the government? Yet, according to the New York Times article, government memos have ordered some of the words in the list above be stricken from government websites and materials.
Other words on the list may still be allowable on websites and materials but trigger greater scrutiny and possible adverse actions when appearing in grant proposals and contracts. People whom I have spoken to at various federal scientific agencies have said that such adverse actions can include the termination of funding. A big challenge for scientists around the country is that a lot of what is happening remains under wraps.
There has been some indication of why the reviews are occuring and what the criteria may be. For example, soon after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, his Administration shut down communications from federal science agencies for about a week. When the NSF website went live again, as of January 29 it included the following statement about Trump’s Executive Orders: “All NSF grantees must comply with these executive orders, and any other relevant executive orders issued, by ceasing all non-compliant grant and award activities.
Executive orders are posted at whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions ." The announcement continued by saying, “In particular, this may include, but is not limited to conferences, trainings, workshops, considerations for staffing and participant selection, and any other grant activity that uses or promotes the use of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) principles and frameworks or violates federal anti-discrimination laws.
” Otherwise, the process has been about as clear as mud to scientists and anyone holding or applying for grants or contracts. Granted, it’s not uncommon for a new Presidential Administration to implement changes in terminologies on websites and funding announcements. As language and understanding evolve, new terms to describe scientific issues can emerge.
But designating terms that could lead to the rejection of scientific funding proposals or withdrawal of federal funding is a different story. All of this has left many scientists and their teams throughout the country in limbo, and not in a fun dance-under-a-horizontal-bar type of way. It’s more in a how-low-can-go way.
Many scientists’ careers hinge heavily on NSF, NIH and other federal funding. So do the many staff and students whom they employ. Plus, many universities and other institutions rely on the indirect cost support from grants to keep different operations going and pay many employees, as I’ve detailed previously for Forbes .
Again, the aforementioned list has not been officially posted for the public to see. Neither has a description of the actions being taken. Therefore, many scientists whom I talked to are unsure about what may happen to their existing funding and when and whether they should apply for new grant funding.
Moreover, who knows what other terms may be added to the uh-oh list when. Additionally, it’s not quite clear who is calling the shots at federal agencies like the NSF and NIH right now. Who is conducting these reviews of grants and contracts? What are their scientific qualifications? Are they even scientists? How much is DOGE involved, meaning Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Governmental Efficiency and not the cryptocurrency or the Director of Graduate Education? Whoever they are, they could be deciding what science is and isn’t done in this country and what diseases will or will not get properly treated.
Is all of this a veer from peer review? Historically, federal agencies like the NSF and NIH have relied heavily on peer-review to determine the merit of scientific project proposals and the awarding of funding. This has been done to prevent the politicization of the scientific process and censorship. Peer review has meant having acknowledged scientific experts who are not members of the agencies and do not have any clear conflicts of interest review, evaluate and give their recommendations on grant proposals.
The NSF, NIH and CDC have typically followed these recommendations. Once a proposed project has been deemed worthwhile by this peer-review process, NSF, NIH and CDC program officers and administrators are not supposed to re-adjudicate or re-evaluate the science because doing so could bring in personal biases and such. This process was put in place long ago in attempts to maintain the integrity of scientific processes.
Although this process has been far from perfect, any attempt to bypass such peer review could lead science and society down a slippery slope. Bypassing peer review in any way could allow individuals to censor what science says and replace it with personal and political agendas. Real science is about being able to freely explore nature and society and determine what is really happening based on real evidence.
In order to do so, scientists must be allowed to remain independent and autonomous without being forced to bow to political influence. That’s allowed scientists in the past to challenge what was conventional wisdom at the time like since disproven beliefs that the Earth was flat and the center of the solar system, evolution didn’t exist and “bad air” rather than germs caused infectious diseases. History is full of tragic situations where political and religious leaders tried to muzzle and persecute scientists.
For example, the Catholic Church put Galileo Galilei on house arrest and trial for supporting the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Nazi regime did all sorts of terrible things to scientists who wouldn’t comply or were of certain race and ethnicities in Germany in the earlier 1900s. These actions have occurred often because scientists are willing to communicate things that those in power don’t want others to hear. A true, pure scientist is one who wants to know the facts and truth and is willing to listen to them over any particular political party or religious sect.
.
