Four former scientists and administrators from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced their resignations or early retirements, citing concerns over political interference in the agency's research and funding decisions under the current administration. The individuals involved are Sylvia Chou, Paul Grothaus, Alexa Romberg, and Vani Pariyadath.
Reasons for Resignation
The scientists outlined several specific reasons for their departure:
- Grant Censorship: They allege that NIH leadership instructed staff to remove terms such as "equity," "diversity," "minority," and "underserved" from grant applications. They described this as a form of ideological coercion impacting research and the scientific workforce.
- Termination of Awards: Awards and applications related to early-career scientists and health disparities research were reportedly withdrawn or terminated without review, often due to being categorized as "DEI" (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). The scientific merit of these projects was not considered, according to the former staff.
- Culture Concerns: They claimed a culture of fear exists within the agency, where colleagues questioning directives were allegedly silenced, placed on leave, or forced out. Staff reportedly expressed concerns about job security if they pushed back against orders.
Context and Background
The scientists stated they anticipated administrative changes in early 2025 but expected continued valuation of scientific inquiry. In June, they joined other colleagues in signing the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter to the NIH director detailing concerns about new policies allegedly undermining scientific integrity and the institute’s mission.
Impact and Call to Action
The former NIH staff expressed concerns that these decisions could harm American communities, stifle scientific advancements, and have long-lasting destabilizing effects on the scientific workforce. They noted that many other colleagues are also leaving, retiring early, or considering departure.
They urged researchers focusing on vulnerable communities and topics like vaccines, health equity, and climate change to continue their work and speak out. They called for collective action to build new opportunities for critical research and to rebuild a biomedical research ecosystem free from political interference. The former scientists emphasized that an attack on science is an attack on freedom of speech and thought, urging colleagues to define their 'red line' to protect democracy and public health.