Unlocking Innovation: Why Science Needs Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for a Better Future

Early medical care during pregnancy can help prevent complications and lead to healthier outcomes for both babies and parents-to-be. For instance, Evangeline Warren, a sociology PhD student at Ohio State University, received a “diversity supplement” grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study medical mistrust among pregnant individuals. Over two years, she interviewed many patients in Ohio who were hesitant about visiting doctors, aiming to improve their medical experiences and potentially save lives.

However, if Warren applied for this project in 2025, she might not receive the same support. The NIH grant, which has been around since 1989, usually helps hundreds of researchers each year, particularly supporting underrepresented groups in the sciences. Warren noted her multiracial background and disability in her application.

“It is just common sense that in order to have the best science, we need the broadest, most inclusive environment for scientists.”

Following Donald Trump’s second presidential term, the NIH made significant changes to the diversity supplement program. They removed important information and, at one point, halted applications, declaring the grant “expired.” They later appeared to restore the program, but this created uncertainty about its future. NIH did not comment on these changes.

Warren was fortunate that her grant concluded at the end of 2024. “I made it out under the wire,” she said. But as a beneficiary, she feels disheartened about the program’s stability. Many early-career researchers rely on grants for mentorship and development. If we lose these scientists, Warren warns, we might miss out on vital discoveries.

The NIH supplements are just one aspect of a bigger issue regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have faced increased scrutiny. Trump’s administration initiated a campaign against DEI in January 2025, labeling federal programs that promote these values as “immoral.” This has caused confusion among various scientific agencies, including the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The NSF, with a $9.06 billion budget primarily for research funding, has started reviewing existing grants for terms related to DEI. They even froze funding for ongoing projects, causing delays in research. This kind of disruption is unprecedented in the scientific community.

Many scientists worry that this crackdown on DEI will have long-lasting effects. It could limit research diversity, restrict participation in science, and ultimately harm public health and safety. “To achieve the best science, we need an inclusive environment,” says Jacob Hoover Vigly, a postdoctoral fellow at MIT. “We risk losing a whole generation of researchers, which would have lasting impacts.”

Promoting diversity in science isn’t a new idea. Vannevar Bush, an influential figure in the 1940s, argued for broadening access to scientific opportunities in his report, “Science: The Endless Frontier.” He emphasized that expanding the pool of scientists was essential for the country’s progress and security.

Since then, various laws have sought to foster diversity. In 1980, Congress passed the NSF Authorization Act to support equal opportunities in science. While progress has been made, significant disparities remain. For example, as of 2023, women made up about 48% of graduate students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), but they are underrepresented in careers in those fields.

Research indicates that diverse teams in science enhance creativity and innovation. Yet, initiatives to support diversity now face challenges from officials who dismiss DEI as “woke” ideology. Elon Musk recently criticized DEI, calling it another form of racism.

In response to these efforts, several scientists are feeling the strain on their funding and research projects. For example, Isabel Low, a neuroscience postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University, worries about upcoming grant applications that target underrepresented researchers. Many of these grants have disappeared from the NIH website since the administration took office.

Funding cuts tend to impact junior researchers most severely, as they often lack the safety nets established scientists have. This is troubling because early-career researchers frequently drive innovation and creativity in science, essential for progress.

Researchers studying topics like women’s health and health disparities might find their work particularly vulnerable. For instance, one professor is concerned that his proposal on women’s health may not align with the administration’s priorities.

Warren fears for her field as well. Although most of her funding is from her university, she believes that studying discrimination’s effects on health will face scrutiny. “If we stop studying these issues, we can’t create effective policies to tackle societal challenges,” she emphasizes.

The challenges don’t end there. Tools and data essential for research have also been restricted. The cut to the Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool has made it harder for scientists to investigate pollution’s impact on vulnerable communities, an issue that is undeniably a science question.

In reality, removing DEI from science may be more complex than it seems, as many grants have mandated diversity components. An NSF employee noted that the law requires the NSF to promote participation in science.

One of the most significant threats is that talented scientists may turn away from government-supported research. Some of Warren’s colleagues are considering private sector jobs, which diminishes research discoveries that could benefit society. Others contemplate leaving the country for work opportunities elsewhere, noting a sense of instability in the U.S. research landscape.

Fortunately, many young researchers remain hopeful. “There are thousands of postdocs and grad students across the country ready to fight for better conditions,” Low stated. As part of labor unions, they are mobilizing to advocate for the future of science.

As for Warren, she plans to graduate with her PhD soon, but uncertainty looms about her next steps. “The recent changes have shown that what we thought was a stable career path can be anything but,” she said. “With one executive order, everything can change.”

In the long run, a country with fewer scientists translates to less essential research. Vannevar Bush’s foresight that neglecting the talents of citizens would be a missed opportunity rings true today. “If we decide that diversity is not a core value, we misunderstand what science in America is all about,” Warren concluded.