Diversity statements should not be required for federal STEMM grant funding

Federally funded research in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) is a crown jewel of American higher education that confers enormous benefits upon the U.S. and the world. The integrity of the processes by which funding decisions are made is critically important to the success of the enterprise and its support by the public who pay for this research. As documented in a recent commentary that I and several colleague published in the journal Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, considerations of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have been introduced into federal science funding decisions. I believe these threaten serious damage to this important ecosystem and require critical analysis before they are routinely implemented.

STEMM funding by federal agencies has fueled the great success of U.S. science, advancing knowledge production and improving the human condition worldwide. Each of the major U.S. funding agencies — the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Defense has a distinct mission, and in 2024 they will together distribute more than $90 billion dollars in research grants.

Funding decisions to support the research goals of each agency require assessment of the scientific merit of submitted proposals, along with the track records of the proposed research teams and their potential to achieve their stated goals. These decisions require a process of peer review by which reviewers with appropriate expertise who are free of personal or professional conflicts of interest rank proposals based on clear guidelines for assessment. Though peer review is hardly perfect, its success is reflected in outstanding research outcomes and the stellar reputation of the U.S. research enterprise.

Inserting DEI considerations into scientific peer review and funding decisions arose from worthy goals: to avoid bias and promote equal and fair treatment for all. But as has occurred in other domains involving DEI bureaucracy, such as mandatory DEI statements in faculty hiring decisions, DEI has gradually morphed from supporting worthy and broadly accepted goals to promoting increasingly ideological and politicized goals that include participation and outcomes for groups based on criteria such as racial and sexual identity that are proportional to their representation in the population. This approach is neither morally justified nor legal under existing civil rights employment law.

The details of DEI requirements for research funding proposals vary across agencies and programs. But common features include vaguely described goals and lack of relevant outcome assessments, along with an implicit expectation of expressed allegiance to a politicized litmus test that is, in effect, compelled speech on a controversial issue in violation of academic freedom.

To quote a recent editorial opposing mandatory DEI statements in faculty hiring: “By overreaching, by resorting to compulsion, by forcing people to toe a political line, by imposing ideological litmus tests, by incentivizing insincerity, and by creating a circular mode of discourse that is seemingly impervious to self-questioning, the current DEI regime is discrediting itself.” The same can be said about DEI requirements in proposals for federal funding for science grants.

Everyone should demand that a STEMM research ecosystem be free of bigotry and actively seek to engage, welcome, and develop a scientific workforce open to all individuals on a fair and equitable basis. Strengthening K-12 education and supporting merit-based practices is a far more effective path toward equal opportunity, fair distribution of resources, and the best science than are DEI-influenced changes to grant proposals and projects. In fact, rather than advancing these worthy goals, requiring DEI plans in grant proposals will likely undermine them by promoting dissembling and cynicism by applicants, reducing the quality of funded research, threatening academic freedom through compelled speech, and ultimately, increasing public mistrust of science that will threaten the entire enterprise.

The Academic Freedom Alliance has recently issued a statement on this matter urging federal agencies that fund STEMM research to desist from demanding plans to advance DEI in their grant proposals.

The rapid and widespread requirement for DEI plans in STEMM grant proposals has proceeded with little or no attention to their potential adverse effects on the quality and impact of funded research and the threat these interventions represent to academic freedom. DEI requirements should be suspended pending objective assessment of their benefits and risks, clarification of how they are actually being employed in funding decisions, and development of safeguards to prevent their misuse.

Jeffrey S. Flier is an endocrinologist, professor of medicine, and former dean of Harvard Medical School.