NIH Grant terminations disproportionately impact minority scientists, research finds

Women, BIPOC and LGBTQ+ scientists were hit hardest by NIH grant terminations, a survey of nearly 1,000 US researchers has found.

The study surveyed 941 investigators whose National Institutes of Health grants were terminated in 2025, and suggests the policy changes may deepen existing disparities in the US biomedical research workforce.

Between January and May 2025, the National Institutes of Health terminated more than 2,000 research grants after shifting agency priorities.

Many of the affected grants focused on health disparities, including research related to BIPOC communities and sexual and gender minorities. I

n addition, about 600 grants were cancelled through institution-wide actions aimed at addressing alleged campus antisemitism.

The research, conducted by the University of California San Diego Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, found that researchers from marginalised groups were both overrepresented among those whose grants were cancelled and more likely to have their work specifically targeted for termination.

Rebecca Fielding-Miller is associate professor at the UC San Diego Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science and senior author of the study.

She said: “These grant terminations didn’t just disrupt specific research projects, they also disrupted the careers of many scientists who study the health of marginalised communities.

“When funding for these topics disappears, the researchers with the deepest expertise in them are often the ones most directly affected.”

The National Institutes of Health is the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, investing roughly US$47bn annually.

Because of the scale of this investment, US research priorities help shape the direction of health science innovations globally.

To understand who was most affected, the team surveyed investigators whose terminated grants were documented in the Grant Witness database.

Of 1,918 investigators invited to participate, 941 completed the survey.

In order to categorise terminations by justification, investigators were asked to select from eight possible reasons for the termination.

For example, participants were considered to have received an equity-related termination if they indicated their grant was terminated due to “amorphous equity objectives”, and a gender-related termination if they indicated their grant was terminated due to “gender identity”.

The analysis found that nearly half, 48.6 per cent, of investigators whose grants were terminated for equity-related reasons identified as BIPOC.

Among grants terminated for gender-related reasons, 60 per cent of investigators identified as sexual or gender minorities, including 16.5 per cent who were transgender or nonbinary.

Disparities extended beyond simple representation. Among investigators whose grants were terminated, BIPOC women and transgender or nonbinary researchers had nearly three times higher odds of receiving an equity-related termination than White men.

Sexual and gender minority investigators were more than 11 times more likely to receive a gender-related termination than heterosexual, cisgender researchers.

The study also found that 20.5 per cent of investigators affected by institution-wide terminations tied to alleged antisemitism identified as Jewish, raising questions about the effectiveness of those actions as a mechanism to protect Jewish researchers.

The findings build on earlier research showing that disparities already exist in the biomedical funding system.

Previous studies have found that scientists from underrepresented backgrounds are more likely to study health disparities or community-based topics that historically receive less funding.

“When funding disruptions disproportionately affect researchers who focus on health disparities, the consequences go far beyond individual careers,” Fielding-Miller said.

“They also shape which scientific questions get asked, and whose health ultimately receives attention.”

The authors warn that the effects could persist for years.

Because research careers and funding success tend to build cumulatively over time, losing even a single grant can derail projects, disrupt community partnerships and limit future funding opportunities, particularly for early-career investigators.

Looking ahead, the researchers say restoring and sustaining funding for equity-related health research will be critical to maintaining a diverse scientific workforce and ensuring that biomedical research reflects the needs of all communities.

“If we want a scientific enterprise that serves everyone,” Fielding-Miller said.

“We have to ensure that scientists studying the health of marginalised communities are able to continue their work.”