Understanding the UC San Diego Study on NIH Grant Impacts

A groundbreaking survey led by researchers at the University of California San Diego has uncovered stark disparities in how National Institutes of Health grant terminations have affected scientists from underrepresented groups. The study, published in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, analyzed responses from 941 principal investigators whose grants were abruptly cut in early 2025. These terminations, totaling over 2,000 grants and approximately $2.45 billion in funding, were part of a broader policy shift under the Trump administration targeting research perceived as aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

The findings reveal that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color investigators, along with women, LGBTQ+ researchers, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, faced significantly higher odds of having their grants specifically targeted for cancellation. This not only disrupts individual projects but threatens the diversity of the biomedical research workforce at U.S. universities, where NIH funding is a lifeline for faculty careers and institutional research agendas.

Background on the 2025 NIH Grant Terminations

In January 2025, shortly after the inauguration of the second Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health began terminating active grants en masse. By May, more than 2,291 research awards had been canceled, withdrawing $2.45 billion that supported ongoing biomedical studies across U.S. universities and research institutions. These cuts primarily hit grants focused on health equity for racial and ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, and topics like misinformation or vaccine hesitancy deemed politically sensitive.

Approximately 58% of terminated grants were R01 research projects, the backbone of independent investigator funding at universities, while 20% were training and career development awards like K01 and T32, crucial for early-career faculty. Institution-wide terminations, often justified as responses to campus antisemitism, affected another 600 grants. The NIH, the world's largest biomedical funder with a $47 billion annual budget, justified the moves as realigning priorities away from 'wasteful' or 'ideological' research, but critics argue it systematically undermined studies addressing underserved populations.

Methodology of the UC San Diego Survey

Led by Rebecca Fielding-Miller, an associate professor at UC San Diego's Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, the team drew from the Grant Witness database, which tracks terminations via investigator submissions and public NIH records. They emailed unique survey links to 1,918 principal investigators with documented cuts between January 20 and May 30, 2025, achieving a 49.1% response rate—higher for targeted terminations (56.2%).

Respondents self-reported demographics including race/ethnicity (BIPOC status), sexual/gender minority (SGM) identity, socioeconomic background, and Jewish identity. They categorized termination reasons from eight options, such as 'amorphous equity objectives' or 'gender identity.' Logistic regression models, adjusted for demographics, assessed odds ratios for targeted vs. institutional terminations. The analysis compared respondent demographics to 2024 NIH-funded investigators, revealing overrepresentation of women and minorities among the affected.

Key Statistics Highlighting Disparities

The data paints a clear picture of inequity:

• Nearly half (48.6%) of equity-related terminations affected BIPOC investigators, far exceeding their 11% share in NIH awards.
• 60% of gender-related terminations hit SGM investigators, including 16.5% transgender/nonbinary; SGM odds were 11.14 times higher (95% CI: 6.85–18.12).
• BIPOC women and trans/nonbinary researchers had 2.69 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.71–4.25) of equity terminations vs. white cisgender men.
• Terminated PIs were 56% women (vs. 42.4% NIH average), 17.7% Hispanic/Latino (vs. 7%), 11.9% Black (vs. 4%).
• 20.5% of institutional (antisemitism-related) terminations affected Jewish investigators.

These patterns held even excluding diversity supplements, confirming structural bias.

Disproportionate Effects on Women and Early-Career Faculty

A companion PNAS analysis found women lost 57.9% of their active resources on average vs. 48.2% for men, with 60% of doctoral (F31) and assistant professor grants led by women. Nearly 400 million in training funds vanished, hitting PhD students and junior faculty hardest. At universities like UC San Diego, Emory, and UNC Chapel Hill—homes to study co-authors—this exacerbates the 'leaky pipeline,' where early losses compound into lifelong funding gaps.

For more on career development grants, see the AAMC report.

Photo by Adrien Olichon on Unsplash

Targeting BIPOC and LGBTQ+ Researchers in Health Equity Work

BIPOC scientists, who already secure just 11% of NIH grants despite comprising 30% of the U.S. population, were overrepresented in cuts to equity-focused research. SGM investigators studying gender health faced 11-fold odds of termination. This chills inquiry into underserved communities, as diverse researchers often lead such work. Universities risk losing diverse faculty, stifling innovation in biomedical fields like cancer disparities or HIV prevention.

Implications for U.S. Universities and Biomedical Research

U.S. universities depend on NIH for 80% of federal extramural funding, supporting labs, postdocs, and grad students. Terminations disrupt partnerships with communities, halt clinical trials, and erode trust. Early-career losses at institutions like UC San Diego threaten tenure tracks for minority faculty, widening the diversity gap. Long-term, this could slow breakthroughs in health disparities research, as seen in historical NIH biases where Black PIs receive 10% less funding for equivalent proposals.

Explore current opportunities in research positions amid these challenges.

Historical Funding Disparities Amplified by Recent Cuts

Pre-2025 data showed Black PhDs 10% less likely to win R01s, women receiving smaller awards. The UCSD study confirms cuts exacerbate this, with targeted terminations hitting disparity researchers hardest. For details, review the full Lancet paper.

Voices from Affected Researchers and Experts

"These grant terminations didn’t just disrupt specific research projects, they also disrupted the careers of many scientists who study the health of marginalized communities," said lead author Rebecca Fielding-Miller. Donna Ginther noted young female investigators bore the brunt, while PhD candidate Jahn Jaramillo lamented eroded community trust: "You’re disappointing them... That has long-term impacts."

Proposed Solutions and Pathways Forward

Experts urge blind peer review reforms, diversity mandates, and restoring equity grants. Universities can bolster internal funding, mentorship for minority faculty, and advocacy via AAMC. NIH's Unified Funding Strategy aims to aid early-career PIs, but critics say it's insufficient without addressing biases.

Photo by Abhinav Anand on Unsplash

• Implement bias training in review panels.
• Fund bridge grants for terminated PIs.
• Track demographics in funding decisions.

Future Outlook for U.S. Biomedical Research Equity

If unaddressed, these cuts could shrink the minority research pipeline, slowing progress on tailored therapies for diverse populations. Yet, resilient universities like UC San Diego continue advocating for inclusive science. Policymakers must prioritize equity to sustain U.S. leadership in biomedicine.