.jpg) |
| Trump’s Ban on Funding for ‘Promoting Gender Ideology |
On January 21, Chris Beyrer, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Duke University, joined a weekly call with 20 fellow scientists conducting an NIH-funded HIV prevention trial. The day before, President Donald Trump had signed an executive order declaring it “the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” The order mandated replacing the word “gender” with “sex” in federal policies and required agencies to ensure grant funds do not “promote gender ideology.”
During the call, one scientist vowed to continue using they/them pronouns for colleagues, regardless of the order. However, a junior scientist later confided in Beyrer, expressing fear that supporting nonbinary individuals on public calls could endanger their research. “They said, ‘I hope nobody says anything like that on a public call ever again.’ And I thought, ‘Wow, this person is afraid,’” Beyrer recalled.
The executive order has sparked widespread fear and uncertainty among researchers conducting NIH-funded studies involving transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse populations. While no projects have been halted yet, the order’s implications remain unclear. Beyrer notes “very real concern,” especially among early-career researchers focused on gender-related health disparities.
Matthew Mimiaga, an epidemiologist at UCLA leading a trial on HIV prevention for young transgender women, warns the order “could significantly limit the scope of research in critical areas.” Seven other principal investigators declined to comment, with one stating, “The situation is too volatile, and I don’t want to draw attention to our study.”
What Does the Executive Order Mean for NIH Research?
The executive order defines sex as binary and dismisses gender identity as a valid concept, drawing criticism from scientists who argue it ignores intersex individuals and the complex interplay between sex and gender. Carrie Wolinetz, a former NIH chief of staff, says the impact hinges on how agencies interpret “promote gender ideology.” A broad interpretation, she warns, could affect any research involving transgender individuals or differentiating gender identity from sex.
Even researchers not directly studying gender minorities fear repercussions. One scientist, whose grant on sex-based differences in Alzheimer’s disease includes the word “gender,” worries his work could be targeted. “If they cancel grants just for using ‘gender’ without understanding their purpose, that will be a huge problem,” he said.
NIH Funding at Risk
NIH funds approximately 1,600 active projects mentioning “gender” in their abstracts, totaling nearly $1 billion. Of these, 412 grants worth $235 million focus on transgender, gender minority, or nonbinary populations. These studies, concentrated in areas like infectious diseases and mental health, address health disparities disproportionately affecting transgender individuals. Many focus on HIV/AIDS and care for transgender youth.
Douglas Diekema, a bioethicist and pediatrician at the University of Washington, argues that most of these studies are not ideological but address real health needs. “These aren’t ‘ideologies’ for most of us. These are people with health needs as important as anybody else’s,” he said.
Broader Implications for Science and Researchers
The order’s interpretation will fall to agency lawyers, but Wolinetz suspects the administration will favor a broad interpretation, potentially mirroring past restrictions on firearm research. Some researchers, like Jess McLaughlin, an openly trans evolutionary biologist, fear their identity and advocacy for diversity could hinder future funding applications.
The order has already altered the landscape for transgender scientists. Federal LGBTQ+ resource pages have been removed, and NIH pages on sex and gender now lead to “access denied” messages. Additionally, changes to government-issued IDs could complicate international travel for researchers with nonbinary gender markers.
What’s Next for Gender-Related Research?
As the scientific community awaits clarity, Diekema remains cautious. “It’s extraordinarily difficult to predict anything this administration might or might not do,” he said. However, the stakes are clear: the order threatens not only scientific progress but also the health and well-being of marginalized communities.
Key Takeaways:
- Trump’s executive order could jeopardize hundreds of NIH-funded research projects.
- Studies on transgender, nonbinary, and gender-diverse populations are at risk.
- Researchers fear broad interpretations of “promote gender ideology” could stifle critical health research.
- The order has already created a chilling effect, with scientists hesitant to speak out or continue advocacy efforts.
For researchers, advocates, and marginalized communities, the executive order represents a significant threat to scientific progress and equitable healthcare. The coming months will reveal how agencies interpret the order and its long-term impact on gender-related research.
Source :Science