As a Ph.D. candidate in computational neuroscience at the University of Chicago, I’ve always found it easy to engage people across the political spectrum in my research. I study the vestibular system, the organs in our inner ear that detect gravity and head motions to maintain balance, stabilize gaze, and provide a sense of spatial orientation. This system is crucial not only in everyday life but also in extreme environments such as spaceflight, where minimal gravity challenges how our bodies sense motion and orientation. When the system is damaged, people suffer from vertigo, difficulty in keeping eyes steady during movement, and migraines.
My research uses biologically realistic simulations of hair cells, neurons, and biological processes as building blocks to create larger models that show how these elements work together to reliably encode head motions. These models provide knowledge that can be used to develop interventions for vestibular impairments. In 2024, I received a prestigious fellowship from the National Institutes of Health to support my research for the remainder of my Ph.D.
On May 23, however, I received a notice from the NIH that my fellowship, awarded through a diversity funding mechanism, had been abruptly terminated. The letter read:
Research programs based primarily on artificial and non-scientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness. Worse, so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) studies are often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics … which harms the health of Americans. Therefore, it is the policy of NIH not to prioritize such research programs. Therefore, no additional funding will be awarded for this project, and all future years have been removed.
The purpose of NIH Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Awards, known as F31 grants, is to provide funding to cover graduate student expenses: stipend, tuition, insurance, and travel for conferences and workshops. Until earlier this year, the F31 fellowship had two funding mechanisms: the standard track and diversity track. While both tracks provided support for research training leading to a Ph.D., the diversity F31 aimed to increase the number of applicants from underrepresented backgrounds. The eligibility criteria not only included racial and ethnic minorities but also students with disabilities, from rural areas, who had been in foster care, who received food assistance, or whose parents did not hold a college degree — all categories that include White students and individuals from traditionally conservative areas.
During my first year of graduate school, I sustained a serious injury that significantly limited my ability to conduct lab experiments. To accommodate my physical limitations, I altered my research to be purely computational and was later advised to submit an F31 application to the diversity track, as I qualified for disability.
The decision by NIH to end support for diversity in research has affected three types of awards: grants awarded to scientists from underrepresented backgrounds whose research is not specifically related to diversity; projects explicitly focused on diversity in health-related research; and grants that happened to use words like “diverse” in completely different contexts (for example, to describe diversity of cancer cells). My award falls under the first group since my research is not related to diversity-focused topics. Unfortunately, I could not appeal the termination decision; the NIH confirmed with the university’s legal team that the cancellation covered the entire F31 diversity program, not individual awards.
If I resubmitted my grant, I would only delete two sentences pertaining to diversity and a letter from the university stating I qualify as a diverse candidate. The science itself would not change.
Applications for the F31 fellowship, regardless of the funding track, were evaluated by the same discipline-appropriate study section, a panel comprised of academic scientists who are experts in that field. Decisions to award NIH grants are based on criteria such as scientific merit; the research training plan; and the strength of the applicant, academic adviser, and institution. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of F31 diversity grants awarded each year remained stagnant while the number of standard awards grew. Although the applications contained the word diversity, it did not increase the likelihood of them being funded.
NIH grants are akin to a business proposal, requiring significant detail. In my 58-page application, I had to include an extensive research plan; a detailed description of my background, career plans, and academic coursework; the experimental equipment needed; and a proposed timeline of conferences, teaching, presentations, and workshops. I was required to submit annual progress reports to the NIH to ensure I met my milestones, similar to updating business stakeholders.
After extensive evaluation by dozens of scientists in NIH’s Hearing and Balance study section, my fellowship application received nearly a perfect score — but this factor was not taken into consideration when the grant was discontinued. If I resubmitted my grant via the standard F31 funding track, I would only delete two sentences pertaining to diversity and a letter from the university stating I qualify as a diverse candidate. The science itself would not change at all. From a business perspective, it seems fiscally irresponsible to stop supporting an approved project midstream and risk compromising the results of the research. This interruption could have been avoided by phasing out the diversity grants rather than summarily cutting them off.
As I shared my story, people encouraged me to re-apply for the standard fellowship track and also tried to reassure me that the university’s endowment could bankroll research. Neither is an option in my case. NIH fellowships require a minimum two years of funding, well beyond my anticipated graduation date in summer 2026. I have searched for private foundation fellowships but found that I am ineligible, as they have specific research focuses and fewer awards compared to the NIH, and are typically reserved for students early in their Ph.D. Universities with large endowments have dipped into their rainy-day funds to support their researchers, but it is not a long-term solution. Endowment funds are legally restricted to donor-designated purposes such as scholarships, named professorships, or designated academic programs.
The University of Chicago’s provost office has officially stated that funding will remain in place for all current graduate students until they complete their programs, thus I will be able to stick to my graduation timeline. However, every science division is “implementing new policies including reduced enrollment, placing PhD students on grants more quickly, and shortening time to degree to help the University meet its goal of reducing unrestricted funding dedicated to PhD students by 30%.” Additionally, many arts and humanities graduate programs have paused admissions for one year. Current students at different institutions may find themselves in a worse situation; they may be forced to graduate earlier (reducing their training), take on additional teaching responsibilities to cover their costs, or leave with a master’s degree.
I am deeply concerned that these funding cuts will reverberate beyond universities and negatively affect the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Prior to 1940, academic research in the U.S. had little federal funding. World War II marked a major turning point when the U.S. government partnered with academia to accelerate wartime R&D projects, including refining radar for military equipment, scaling up penicillin production, and developing atomic weapons. After the war, federal funding agencies expanded rapidly, driving scientific discovery, advancing technology, and fueling innovation. This positioned the U.S. as a global leader in research, attracting top talent from around the world and stimulating the economy.
Academic research is the foundation for scientific breakthroughs that fuel biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Reducing the discovery pipeline threatens a decline in the biomedical workforce, slower innovation, and higher health care costs. During my internship at a large pharmaceutical company, many discussions revolved around academic discoveries when designing new therapies, and my own internship project relied on collaborations with academic groups. My degree in computational neuroscience is foundational for emerging areas like artificial intelligence to develop algorithms inspired by how the brain learns, recognizes patterns, and reasons. Academic research focuses on discovery and is on a timeline that operates independently of the private sector’s pressure to deliver rapid returns to investors.
The Covid-19 pandemic fractured the public’s trust in scientific research, which in turn negatively affected the reputations of many scientists. I hope scientists and the public can reestablish a dialogue across the political spectrum to ensure that scientific research meets societal needs while maintaining rigor. The current political divisions risk dismantling the very system that made the U.S. the global leader in scientific innovation. These funding cuts do not just jeopardize individual projects — they weaken the pipeline of discoveries that fuel education, medicine, technology, and national security. They may also drive scientists to other countries or out of the field altogether. If this erosion continues, I fear that the U.S. may never recover.
Olivia Lutz is a 7th-year student in the Ph.D. Program in Computational Neuroscience at the University of Chicago. Prior to graduate school, she worked as a neuroimaging lab manager at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center researching the biological mechanisms underlying schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, as well as treatment interventions.