吃瓜直播

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) 鈥� the world鈥檚 largest public funder of biomedical research 鈥� began an ideological purge of its grants in February. Without warning, hundreds of research projects were abruptly cancelled.

The NIH targeted research that was purportedly connected to 鈥済ender identity鈥� and 鈥渄iversity, equity, and inclusion鈥� (DEI), or other topics such as vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 based on sweeping, unsubstantiated, and politically-driven claims that the research was not scientific and would not benefit Americans. The NIH also systematically purged training grants designed to facilitate the entry of historically underrepresented groups into the biomedical field as mandated by Congress. This jeopardized opportunities for the best and the brightest of the next generation of scientists and particularly harmed racial and ethnic minorities, women, people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and those from rural communities. Along with Protect Democracy and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the 吃瓜直播 sued.

In June, the court found that this purge violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), noting that, without proper reasoning, the NIH unlawfully targeted research involving 鈥渄isfavored鈥� topics and populations along with training grants designed to enhance diversity in the biomedical field, and failed to define terms such as 鈥淒EI." District Judge William G. Young said that these terminations were not only illegal, but also represent 鈥渞acial discrimination, and discrimination against America鈥檚 LGBTQ community,鈥� he said. 鈥淚鈥檝e sat on this bench now for 40 years 鈥� and I have never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable.鈥�

The court will next address the hundreds of submitted applications NIH left in limbo. We are working to ensure those proposals are fairly reviewed and that NIH can鈥檛 bury the next generation of life-saving research.

For now, Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, one of our clients in this case, reflects on why the NIH grant that was terminated is critical to their work addressing the health needs of LGBTQ and gender-diverse people.

Since our founding, Ibis has worked in partnership with providers, communities, community-based organizations, and advocates to conduct rigorous research to not only advance sexual and reproductive health care access, but also to shift power and advance human rights and racial justice. As a small research nonprofit, grant funding is critical to executing our mission, and receiving an NIH grant is crucial.

Successfully passing the NIH's rigorous review process is a marker of high-quality work that will have a significant impact. After years of preparation and revision, we were thrilled to receive a grant in 2023. The project was designed to identify and test inclusive and more accurate questions on sexual and reproductive health for research to ensure that all people seeking sexual and reproductive health care can access it. While this research would benefit all of us, it was structured to focus on the gaping hole in our knowledge about sexual and reproductive health experiences of trans and gender-diverse people. The NIH itself said that these populations were underserved in sexual health research.

This March, as we learned NIH grants were being terminated, we began planning for the worst. But that did not prepare us for the shock of reading our termination letter, which claimed that our grant was 鈥渦nscientific,鈥� focused on 鈥済ender identity,鈥� and likely to 鈥渄o nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.鈥� This is contrary to the conclusions a panel of independent scientists drew when they reviewed and scored the grant as being in the top 2 percent of all applications submitted to the NIH.

Our decision to join this lawsuit was not only about the arbitrary and hurtful termination, but also about the need for rigorous science to improve all of our lives so everyone can be healthy and build the families they choose. As the panel of experts that reviewed our proposal said, the research was not only needed to better understand the reproductive health needs of trans and gender-diverse people, it also was 鈥渆xceptionally high impact鈥� with 鈥渁 high likelihood of profound and sustained impact on public health research and clinical practice.鈥� We need this type of high-impact research across so many public health topics to continue to identify new treatments and care strategies. It also allows us to address the glaring differences in health outcomes and experiences based on gender, sexual orientation, geography, race, and income that determine how healthy we are and what access to care we have in the U.S.

During the recent ruling, it was heartening to hear Young push back against the terminations, call out the way that ideology was driving the process, and confirm that there was no evidence that the terminations followed the rigorous science and review process that NIH is known for. We are glad to continue to fight for the rigorous science, inclusive research, and health care that our families, loved ones, and communities need and deserve.