The Ruthless Politicization of Science Funding

How should taxpayer money earmarked for science funding be used? This is a $90-billion-per-year question.

The money is entrusted to federal funding agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Each agency has a well-defined mission.

The NSF focuses on fundamental research; the DOE on energy; the NIH on health; and NASA on space exploration. Scientists submit research proposals, and the agencies decide which proposals to fund and which to decline.

The traditional, time-tested criteria have been scientific merit, the track record of the investigators, and alignment with the agency’s mission. Decision making relies on a peer-review process involving reviewers with appropriate expertise, clear guidelines for assessment, and avoidance of personal or professional conflicts of interest. The success of this merit-based approach to science funding can be seen in the achievements and excellent worldwide reputation of the U.S. research enterprise.

But this is changing, and not for the good. To get funding today, scientists must show that their research will advance the goals of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).

These terms connote lofty goals, but a close look at what is actually implemented under the DEI umbrella reveals a program of discrimination, justified on more or less nakedly ideological grounds, that impedes rather than advances science. And that program has spread much more deeply into core scientific disciplines than most people, including many scientists, realize. This has happened, in large part, by federal mandate, in particular by two Executive Orders, EO 13985 and EO 14091, issued by the Biden White House.

These executive orders do not call for equal opportunity in science funding — funding of the best scientific ideas, regardless of who proposes them — but for so-called equity, which gives preferences in funding to specific identity groups. EO 13985 perversely claims that such group preferences are a prerequisite for equal opportunity.

As the molecular biologist Julia Schaletzky writes, “by design, many science-funding agencies are independent from the government and cannot be directed to do their work in a certain way.” So how do Biden’s executive orders have teeth? The answer: They are implemented through the budget process, a runaround meant, as Schaletzky says, to tether “next year’s budget allocation to implementation of ideologically driven DEI plans at all levels.”

In practice, this means that scientists seeking research funding must now profess their belief in the existence of systemic barriers in their institutions and present plans for how, through their research, they will advance the goals of DEI, such as by giving preference to historically underrepresented groups in the hope of achieving representation proportional to their numbers in the general population. Agencies require researchers to dedicate resources to DEI activities, and some even recommend the hiring of paid “DEI consultants.” What’s more, they require researchers to submit diversity statements that will be evaluated along with the scientifically substantive parts of the research proposal.

In a truly Orwellian manner, the DOE has pledged to “update [its] Merit Review Program to improve equitable outcomes for DOE awards.” Proposals seeking DOE funding must include a PIER (Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research) plan, which is “encouraged” to discuss the demographic composition of the project team and to include “inclusive and equitable plans for recognition on publications and presentations.”

The National Institutes of Health’s BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) initiative requires applicants to submit a “Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP).” By “diverse perspectives,” the NIH explains that it means diverse demographics. In the agency’s own words, “PEDP is a summary of strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through inclusivity. Broadly, diverse perspectives refer to the people who do the research, the places where research is done, as well as the people who participate in the research as part of the study population [emphasis ours].”

The NIH’s efforts toward advancing racial equity also offer an invitation to “Take the Pledge,” which includes committing to the idea that “equity, diversity, and inclusion drives success,” “setting up a consultation with an EDI [DEI] liaison,” and “ordering the ‘EDI Pledge Poster’ (or … creat[ing] your own) for your space and hav[ing] your team sign it.”

Scientists applying to the National Science Foundation for what are known as Centers for Chemical Innovation grants must now provide a two-page Diversity and Inclusion Plan “to ensure a diverse and inclusive center environment, including researchers at all levels, leadership groups, and advisory groups.” They must also file an eight-page “broader impact” plan, which includes increasing participation by underrepresented groups. For comparison, the length of the scientific part of the proposal is 18 pages.

Direct evidence of an intention to consider race as a factor in funding was revealed in another NIH initiative. In 2021, the NIH put out a notice encouraging Black scientists and those in other underrepresented groups to fill out a box for race on the funding application, which would flag their applications for further consideration, “even if the quality score that peer-review panels award the proposals falls outside the cutoff for most grants.” (Yes, reader, you read that correctly.) The initiative has since been rescinded, but the NIH continues to emphasize that “diversity of teams” is an asset in funding decisions.

As Kevin Jon Williams, a cardiovascular researcher at Temple University, explains, this creates a moral dilemma for scientists of “diverse” ancestry who are skeptical of the DEI regime. “If I refuse to identify myself as African American, our application is more likely to lose on ‘diversity’ grounds. It’s a double wrong. Not only is the system rigged based on nonscientific — and possibly illegal — criteria; it encourages me to join in the rigging.” Williams doesn’t mince words: “I can never forgive the National Institutes of Health for reinjecting racism into medical research.”

For its part, NASA requires applicants to dedicate a portion of their research efforts and budget to DEI activities, to hire DEI experts as consultants — and to “pay them well.” How much do such services cost? A Chicago-based DEI firm offers training sessions for $500 to $10,000, e-learning modules for $200 to $5,000, and keynotes for $1,000 to $30,000. Consulting monthly retainers cost $2,000 to $20,000, and single “consulting deliverables” cost $8,000 to $50,000. Hence, taxpayer money that could be used to solve scientific and technological challenges is diverted to DEI consultants. Given that applicants’ DEI plans are evaluated by panels comprising 50 percent scientists and 50 percent DEI experts, the self-interest of the DEI industry is evident.

These requirements to incorporate DEI into each research proposal are alarming. They constitute compelled speech; they undermine the academic freedom of researchers; they dilute merit-based criteria for funding; they incentivize unethical — and, indeed, sometimes illegal — discriminatory hiring practices; they erode public trust in science; and they contribute to administrative overload and bloat.

Instructions to applicants and examples of successful proposals make it abundantly clear that DEI plans must adhere to a specific ideological doctrine. According to NASA, “the assessment of the Inclusion Plan will be based on […] the extent to which the Inclusion Plan demonstrated awareness of systemic barriers to creating inclusive working environments that are specific to the proposal team.” Thus, to get funding, scientists must declare that their own institution and research groups are uninclusive and discriminatory, which is an offense to the many scientists who have worked hard to ensure fair and transparent hiring practices in their institutions. These requirements effectively constitute DEI loyalty oaths as prerequisite for funding.

Introducing DEI plans into the evaluation of scientific proposals dilutes the criterion of intellectual merit, creating fertile ground for corruption and perverse outcomes. In the competition for funding, which proposal should the DOE fund — the one demonstrating the most promise to advance solar-energy research or the one promising to involve more female students? Should the NIH fund the best ideas in cancer research or the best plans for achieving higher representation of LGBTQ+ researchers?

We know from the history of totalitarian regimes that when science is subjugated to ideology, science suffers. And the current approach to linking DEI considerations to funding decisions weakens achievement- and merit-based criteria in science funding, which means that money paid by hardworking taxpayers is not being used to support the best scientific projects.

Moreover, when funding agencies use their power to further a particular political or ideological agenda, they contribute to public distrust of science and scientific institutions. When scientists become complicit by infusing ideology into their research, they are no longer perceived as trustworthy experts — nor should they be. Should the public withdraw its support for science, loss of funding will ultimately ensue, with attendant detrimental consequences to the nation.

Systemic disparities in opportunity, especially those related to socioeconomic status, are real and well documented. DEI initiatives such as those related to grant funding have taken the place of efforts to investigate and address the underlying issues that have led to today’s inequities — the root causes that prevent all Americans from achieving their potential. The approach to DEI codified by Biden’s executive orders is based on the false presumption that a fair and equitable society can be achieved by mandating proportional participation in a highly competitive, achievement-based activity, such as science. Attempting to fix disparities by social engineering is ineffective, is unfair, and probably violates civil-rights law.

It is time to acknowledge that a wrong turn has been taken and get ourselves onto the right road — the road of true nondiscrimination and equality of opportunity.

Parts of this essay are adapted from a paper recently published in Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.