This week, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), a major private funder of biomedical research, surprised many by ending its $60 million Inclusive Excellence program. This initiative was designed to support diverse undergraduate students in science and engineering fields.
The abrupt termination shocked the 104 institutions that were part of the program. HHMI had previously advocated for diversity in science, committing $2 billion over ten years to enhance inclusion and equity in academia when they announced their initiative in 2021.
This news has raised concerns about the future of diversity programs in light of recent political shifts. Following President Trump’s executive orders against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have started to reevaluate their own funding for similar projects.
Mark Peifer, a developmental biologist at the University of North Carolina and a strong supporter of DEI efforts, expressed disappointment. He acknowledged HHMI’s past leadership in promoting diversity, mentioning their significant investments over two decades. Participants in the IE3 program felt particularly let down as they had expected HHMI to be a reliable ally in funding initiatives that federal grants might overlook.
HHMI confirmed the program’s cancellation but did not elaborate on the reasons behind this decision. They also removed all information about the IE3 program from their website.
Other organizations, like the American Society for Microbiology, have also been pressured to modify their content relating to diverse scientists, largely due to federal funding restrictions. While HHMI itself is not directly federally funded, many IE3 participants depend on federal grants, making them vulnerable to these political changes.
Despite this setback, HHMI stated that they do not expect other diversity programs, like the Freeman Hrabowski Scholars and Hanna Gray Fellows initiatives, to be affected. However, the descriptions of these programs have been altered, removing references to their commitment to equity and inclusion.
The IE3 program was innovative for its focus on collaboration rather than competition. It created groups of institutions that worked together to enhance the retention of diverse undergraduate STEM students. Many participants valued the community they built and the collaborative efforts fostered by the program.
Alison Roark, who directed the IE3 program at Furman University, lamented the loss of years of team building and progress, highlighting the devastation felt by those involved. Institutions utilized the program funds for various activities, such as improving teaching methods and supporting student lab experiences. The program was intended to span six years, with most institutions only now entering their third year of funding.
Concerns have been raised about potential layoffs due to the funding cut, particularly in states that are less supportive of diversity initiatives. The prestige associated with HHMI funding offered a significant boost to scholars working in this area, giving them vital recognition and support.
Former HHMI director David Asai hopes that grantees will continue their important work even after the program’s end. However, many in academia feel uncertain about where to seek funding for diversity-centered initiatives in the future, and those involved in learning clusters are left to navigate the implications of this development on their ongoing efforts.
As institutions meet to strategize their remaining funding, the commitment to supporting diversity in education remains present, but the path forward appears more challenging without backing from entities like HHMI.
Source link
diversity and inclusion,Donald Trump,education,scientists
