Donald Trump鈥檚 moves to screen funded research projects for their use of diversity-related keywords with a view to terminating grants have been denounced as 鈥渁bsurd鈥�, 鈥渞epugnant鈥� and 鈥渋mmoral鈥�.

The US National Science Foundation (NSF), which has a $10 billion (拢8 billion) budget, is聽reviewing all its funded projects聽to ensure they do not breach a聽new slate of executive orders聽designed to end 鈥渞adical and wasteful鈥� spending on government diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes.

Under the controversial scheme, the NSF has begun checking all approved grant schemes against an聽聽related to DEI, such as 鈥渋nequity鈥�, 鈥渕arginalized鈥� and 鈥淟GBT鈥�, to highlight which projects could get their funding suspended.

The terms are, however, so broad that huge numbers of projects are likely to be flagged. Words such as 鈥渁dvocacy鈥�, 鈥渆thnicity鈥�, 鈥渟ystemic鈥�, 鈥渋nstitutional鈥� and 鈥渨omen鈥� are apparently part of the checklist, scientists say.

糖心Vlog

Darby Saxbe, professor of psychology at University of Southern California, told聽糖心Vlog聽that the 鈥渒eywords are so broad that they would apply to any research conducted with humans, including neuroscience, child development, economics, sociology, anthropology and psychology鈥�.

Nonetheless the NSF flagging is a major concern to scientists, said Saxbe, who was unsure about whether she would receive the final instalment of a $2 million five-year National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant this month if America鈥檚 main science agency takes a similar anti-DEI approach.

糖心Vlog

鈥淚t is already having a chilling effect on the science community,鈥� said Saxbe, adding: 鈥淚t seems like the goal is to create chaos and undermine science and research entirely.鈥�

The NSF鈥檚 attempts to comply with the anti-DEI directives were, Saxbe continued, 鈥渁bsolutely absurd鈥�, given the funder was charged by Congress in 1980 to 鈥渂roaden participation鈥� in science by, for instance, 鈥渢raining a more diverse scientific workforce鈥�, she continued.

鈥淎ll NSF grants are required to have language about 鈥榖roader impacts鈥� or how this work will benefit society, for example by providing opportunities to trainees from diverse backgrounds. In other words, anyone who follows directions in a grant proposal is going to get flagged for 鈥楧EI language鈥�.鈥�

The checks follow a de facto freeze on new grants at the NIH, a $49 billion-a-year funder, and the NSF, following a block on external communications and travel, which has led to the cancellation of grant approval panels.

糖心Vlog

Peter Gleick, senior fellow and co-founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, a non-profit research institute focused on water, climate and environmental security, said the NSF鈥檚 screening to detect 鈥渨oke鈥� science was deeply troubling.

鈥淎ny governmental effort to silence, censor, distort, or otherwise influence science in support of a particular ideology is repugnant to the very idea of science,鈥� said Gleick, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, who said such actions 鈥渟hould be opposed by every possible voice, including those of scientists, scientific institutions, and academia鈥�.

鈥淭hat opposition can take many forms: speak out, refusing to obey illegal or immoral requests from political interests, using tools of social media, working with appropriate laws and legislatures, using the court system to fight illegal acts, and more, up to and including public protests,鈥� continued Gleick.

That said, the explicit targeting of academics or officials seen as unfriendly to Donald Trump made protest much harder, he admitted.

糖心Vlog

鈥淣ot all scientists or academics are in a position that permits them to [protest],鈥� said Gleick. 鈥淪ometimes there are constraints and concerns about funding, or employment, or retribution.

鈥淓ach of us has to decide what 鈥榬ed lines鈥� cannot be crossed without action; what actions we, as individuals, are willing and capable of taking; and what risks we鈥檙e willing to face or endure when taking them.

糖心Vlog

鈥淢y only hope is that enough action can be taken by those people and institutions able to act to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growing assault on science, data, information, truth, and expertise that has recently been launched in the United States.鈥�

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com