National Science Foundation Cancels Hundreds of DEI and Misinformation Research Grants, Sparking Outcry Among Scientists
Washington D.C. – The National Science Foundation (NSF) has ignited a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community by canceling hundreds of research grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as misinformation and disinformation. The move, justified by NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan as aligning with the agency’s priorities and a presidential executive order, has been met with outrage and accusations of political interference in scientific research. The canceled grants, totaling $233 million according to the Department of Government Efficiency, encompass a wide array of research projects, from studies on combating online misinformation to community-based research on the impact of extreme heat on diverse populations.
The NSF’s decision stems from a January 20 executive order issued by President Trump mandating the termination of all federal programs promoting “race- and sex-based preferences” under the guise of DEI. In a statement on its website, the NSF echoed the executive order’s language, arguing that prioritizing specific subgroups based on protected characteristics does not align with the agency’s mission to advance scientific progress for all. This rationale has been vehemently contested by researchers whose grants were canceled, many of whom argue that their work addresses critical societal challenges and promotes inclusivity in science.
The cancellation of these grants has sent shockwaves through the research community, with many scientists expressing dismay and concern over the future of research on these crucial topics. Tammie Visintainer, whose CAREER grant focused on climate justice action research with teachers and students, described the cancellation as “heartbreaking” and a blow to her life’s work. The abrupt termination of funding has left researchers scrambling to find alternative sources of support and has raised fears of a chilling effect on future research proposals related to DEI and misinformation.
Critics of the NSF’s decision argue that it represents a dangerous politicization of science and undermines efforts to address systemic inequalities within the scientific community and broader society. They point to the importance of DEI initiatives in fostering a more inclusive and representative scientific workforce, as well as the vital role of research on misinformation and disinformation in combating the spread of false and harmful information. Furthermore, they argue that focusing on specific groups, particularly those historically marginalized, is not about preferential treatment but about addressing existing disparities and ensuring equitable access to opportunities and resources.
The controversy surrounding the NSF’s decision highlights a growing tension between political agendas and scientific inquiry. While the NSF maintains that its actions are consistent with its mission and presidential directives, critics argue that the cancellation of these grants represents a significant setback for scientific progress and will have far-reaching consequences for research addressing critical societal issues. This clash between political priorities and scientific pursuits underscores the need for ongoing dialogue and robust safeguards to protect the integrity and independence of scientific research.
In the wake of the NSF’s announcement, researchers have mobilized to document the impact of the grant cancellations and advocate for the reinstatement of funding. Noam Ross and Scott Delaney, researchers at rOpenSci and Harvard respectively, have created an online platform for researchers to report their canceled grants, aiming to provide a comprehensive picture of the extent of the damage and potentially lay the groundwork for future legal challenges. This collective effort reflects the scientific community’s determination to resist what they perceive as an unwarranted intrusion of political ideology into the realm of scientific inquiry. The fight over the canceled grants is likely to continue, with potential legal challenges and ongoing debate about the appropriate role of government in funding scientific research. The outcome of this battle will have significant implications for the future of scientific inquiry and its role in addressing pressing societal challenges.
