The persistent challenge of building a diverse and robust scientific workforce is often described as a “leaky pipeline,” with researchers from marginalized groups disproportionately leaving the field at each career stage. Recent data suggests this pipeline isn’t just leaking – it experienced a significant, and unevenly distributed, disruption in the past year. A new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that grant terminations from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) weren’t applied equally, with women, and particularly those early in their careers, bearing a significantly heavier burden. This isn’t simply a matter of fewer grants overall; it’s about which grants were cut, and the cascading effects those cuts will have on the future of scientific inquiry.
The study meticulously analyzed grant termination data, revealing a stark disparity. While the NIH maintains it allocated its full budget in 2025, supporting scientists at all career stages engaged in “high-impact science,” the data paints a more nuanced picture. On average, 57.9% of grant funds held by women were terminated, compared to 48.2% for men. This difference, while seemingly small, becomes critical when considering the existing funding gaps. Women already receive fewer NIH grants overall and tend to be awarded smaller amounts than their male counterparts. Losing a larger proportion of already limited funding creates a particularly precarious situation. The impact is most acute for those just beginning their careers: a full 60% of terminated grants impacting doctoral students and assistant professors were led by women.
This finding isn’t isolated. Donna Ginther, an economist at the University of Kansas specializing in NIH funding demographics, who was not involved in the study, confirms this trend aligns with anecdotal evidence circulating within the scientific community. “Young and female investigators disproportionately lost NIH funding,” she stated, adding that many of these were training grants – the very foundation upon which scientific careers are built. The termination of these grants isn’t just a financial setback; it actively “derails scientific careers just as they are getting started.” This disruption isn’t merely about lost research projects; it’s about lost potential, and the erosion of a future workforce that reflects the diversity of the population it serves.
The study’s authors, led by Diego F. M. Oliveira of the University of North Dakota, emphasize that funding shocks don’t operate in a vacuum. “The main implication is that funding shocks do not affect all researchers equally, they interact with existing structural features of the system,” Oliveira explained. Their analysis shows women and early-career researchers were more likely to hold smaller grants, and to be in the initial phases of those projects when funding was cut. This timing is crucial. A larger percentage of their planned research was interrupted, creating a disproportionate setback compared to investigators with larger, more established projects. Mytien Nguyen, an M.D.-Ph.D. candidate at Yale University, further highlights this dynamic, noting that precarity limits the “academic and mental emotional freedom to pursue whatever risky research question” that often leads to breakthroughs.
This piece references the STAT report.
Beyond gender, the data reveals another troubling trend: a significant drop in NIH fellowship grants awarded to Black researchers. In 2024, 205 such awards were given; in 2025, that number plummeted to 122 – a 40% decrease (white researchers also experienced a drop, but of only 9%). This decline may be linked to the types of research pursued by these scientists. Ginther suggests that women and scientists of color are more likely to focus on areas – like population health – that are historically underfunded, or that have become politically sensitive. The administration’s targeting of programs designed to diversify the sciences further exacerbates the problem. The termination of 405 F31 awards, specifically those designated as “diversity” awards, sends a particularly damaging message.
The experience of Jahn Jaramillo, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Miami, exemplifies this complex interplay. His grant, which received a perfect peer review score and focused on HIV in the Latino immigrant community – a topic aligned with the administration’s stated goal of ending the HIV epidemic – was nevertheless terminated. Jaramillo’s research was deeply rooted in community engagement, leveraging his linguistic and cultural understanding to reach previously untapped populations. The grant termination wasn’t just a professional setback; it severed trust with the community he aimed to serve. “You’re disappointing them, you’re confusing them,” he said, emphasizing the long-term consequences of disrupting research relationships built on mutual respect and understanding. He described a feeling of having his identity “weaponized” against him.
It’s crucial to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The data focuses on grant terminations within a single year, 2025, and doesn’t offer a longitudinal view of career trajectories. While the correlation between gender/race and grant termination is statistically significant, it doesn’t definitively prove causation. Other factors, such as the quality of grant proposals and the competitiveness of specific research areas, undoubtedly play a role. However, the study provides compelling evidence that existing systemic biases within the NIH funding process were amplified during this period, leading to disproportionate harm. The NIH’s “Unified Funding Strategy,” implemented in December, aims to address some of these issues by considering career stage and reducing reliance on score cutoffs, but its long-term impact remains to be seen.
Looking ahead, the critical question is whether the NIH will prioritize not just scientific merit, but also equity and inclusivity in its funding decisions. Will the agency actively work to restore the pipeline, particularly for early-career researchers and those from underrepresented groups? Researchers and policymakers should closely monitor the distribution of grants in the coming years, paying particular attention to the success rates of applicants from diverse backgrounds and the funding levels awarded to projects addressing health disparities. The future of American science depends on it.
