Abstract
At the time of writing, a judge has just ruled against the Trump administration’s cuts to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), calling them discriminatory. If this ruling stands (and the administration is likely to appeal it), funding to nearly 800 of the cancelled research projects addressing sexuality and gender minorities, intersex people, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issues, and even Covid 19 could be restored.
Quoted in Nature, Judge William Young of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, said, ‘[The cuts represent] racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. I would be blind not to call it out. I’ve been on the bench for 40 years — I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this’. (Kozlov, 2025)
The finding relates solely to projects of the researchers named in the lawsuits and the 16 states that sued the government, so at best it would only restore around 30% of all cancelled projects.
In addition to the cuts to research funding discussed above, overseas research and programmatic spending on critical infectious diseases such as HIV have been imperilled both by a ‘pause’ on research funding and also by cuts to international aid programmes that provide critical support to research programmes.
Meanwhile, 1000 NIH researchers have signed The Bethesda Declaration: A call for NIH and HHS leadership to deliver on promises of academic freedom and scientific excellence (see standupforscience.net). This Declaration, addressed to the newly appointed head of the NIH, criticises the politicisation of research and specifically the censorship of research on DEI, Covid-19, the health impacts of climate change, gender identity, sexual health and the needs of intersex people, and broad participation in biomedical research.
The conduct of research has never been more overtly political.
The systemic discrimination against particular populations – LGBTQI+ people and those facing structural disadvantage that DEI programmes aim to address – and against particular health issues, such as the health impacts of climate change and Covid-19 – is clearly unethical and frankly abhorrent. It also poses challenges to those of us working in research ethics. This massive structural blow to the infrastructure of research funding overtly removes merit and need from consideration. It threatens to make the healthcare requirements of great swathes of the population – particularly those already facing such structural disadvantage invisible, unheard and insoluble.
In response, at this journal, we intend to try to prioritise those perspectives, insofar as we can within the scope of research ethics. We will also place a higher priority on research ethics scholarship that takes a critical and normative approach rather than one that is solely descriptive.
We recognise that many of our reviewers, authors and readers will have been severely impacted by these changes to the research landscape.
We invite manuscripts that engage with the moral quandaries with respect to research ethics that this new regime is surfacing.