Demonstrators at a rally called “Stand Up For Science” at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on March 7 hold signs. Universities are currently striving to adhere to President Donald Trump’s directives against diversity in order to maintain federal grants supporting critical medical research, including areas like cancer and maternal health. The Trump administration has threatened to withdraw funds for medical research and revoke accreditation from universities with diversity and inclusion programs or those involved in boycotting Israeli companies. This push expands on the anti-diversity mandate signed by Trump early in his second term, labeling diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as discriminatory.
Harvard University is embroiled in a legal battle with the administration, resulting in the suspension of $2.2 billion in federal grants destined for the university. While Harvard fights to regain access to these funds, other universities, especially public and smaller institutions, lack the resources to contest these directives. Many schools have halted diversity programs and altered their websites in response to the administration’s demands, while some have complied openly by restricting certain terms and making staff cuts.
Despite efforts to appease the administration, universities like Columbia and Ohio State have faced significant funding cuts. NIH has terminated hundreds of research grants mentioning equity, racial disparities, LGBTQ populations, and Covid-19, affecting institutions across the country. The cancellations have implications beyond immediate research freeze and staff layoffs, raising concerns about the broader impact on health care studies. Scientists and public health experts fear a chilling effect on research, as NIH plays a crucial role as the major public funder of biomedical research in the US.
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing health care research, expressed concern about the significant budget cuts proposed for the upcoming year. She highlighted the need for innovative approaches to continue essential work in the face of reduced funding. For instance, addressing health care disparities that disproportionately impact specific populations, such as the persistent high rates of maternal and infant mortality in the US compared to other developed countries. Within these statistics, there are stark racial disparities, with Black women being three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women. Experts attribute these disparities to factors like racial bias, access to health care, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic status, making it challenging to separate issues of equity, race, and risk from maternal health research. Despite the importance of studying and understanding these issues to save lives, research funding in critical areas such as postpartum survival, HIV prevention in LGBTQ populations, and breast cancer risks in Black women has been cut by the NIH.
The reduction in grant funding has also affected Covid-19 outreach, vaccination efforts, and messaging, raising concerns among health experts and political leaders. Senator Susan Collins highlighted the potential negative impact on medical innovation and global leadership due to the combination of funding cuts, layoffs, and agency disruptions. Furthermore, the cancellation of NIH grants has drawn criticism from Republican leaders, who fear setbacks in medical research and advancements.
In 2023, the NIH initiated a $168 million program involving ten universities to enhance maternal health care. However, in a surprising turn of events, funding to two of the universities was abruptly canceled in March. Columbia University and Morehouse School of Medicine were among the institutions affected, impacting their efforts to improve pregnancy and postpartum care for Black women. These grant cancellations have significant implications not only for maternal health research but also for broader issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the medical field.
After the NIH reduced funding, Morehouse School of Medicine President Valerie Montgomery Rice defended diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, emphasizing their importance in healthcare. The medical school is currently evaluating the impact of the funding cut on research initiatives. Senator Jon Ossoff condemned the attack on Morehouse School of Medicine and called for the immediate restoration of funding. Several projects in the maternal health program highlighted disparities among Black, Hispanic, and indigenous women, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions. Despite the challenges, researchers remain committed to addressing maternal health issues and improving outcomes for at-risk populations. Dr. Uma Reddy’s project aimed to enhance postpartum care by providing support to new mothers facing mental health and cardiac complications. The project faced setbacks due to the funding cut, leaving researchers disillusioned and uncertain about future prospects. Collaborations with industry partners have not materialized, leaving researchers like Reddy searching for alternative avenues to continue their important work in maternal health care.
By prioritizing maternal and infant health, you can ensure healthier children and families while also reducing costs for federally funded health care programs. A recent poll from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health revealed strong support among Americans for initiatives addressing maternal and infant mortality, ranking only behind solutions for chronic diseases and infectious disease research in a survey that included both Republicans and Democrats.
However, many proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding appear to contradict efforts to promote a healthier America with fewer chronic illnesses, according to researchers. These cuts impact various projects targeting autism, diabetes, cancer research in underserved areas, and disparities in chronic disease outcomes, with a focus on minority populations and equity in care. Some researchers, who had invested years and significant funding into their projects, now face cancellations with only a fraction of their grants remaining.
For example, a University of Virginia study aimed at improving diagnostic tools for autism in women and nonbinary individuals had its funding terminated, leaving a significant amount unspent. Likewise, Ohio State University saw multiple grants canceled, including one addressing substance use among sexual minorities, with minimal funds left to disburse. These actions have prompted universities to reevaluate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, with some institutions quietly removing related content from their websites.
Despite these challenges, ongoing efforts to support maternal health at Tulane School of Medicine remain intact, while research on lupus progression in Black Americans and Covid-19 treatments for cancer patients faced funding cuts. The university has shifted its DEI programming to comply with federal regulations, emphasizing the importance of maintaining federal funding to support critical research initiatives.
In the face of these cuts, it is crucial to recognize the value of investing in initiatives that not only save lives but also contribute to a healthier and more equitable society for all.
“The significant reduction in funding has created a sense of urgency for change,” he emphasized. Sign up at CNN.com for additional CNN news and newsletters.
