Politicizing Science Funding Undermines Public Trust in Science, Academic Freedom, and the Unbiased Generation of Knowledge

A New Paper Exposes How D.E.I. Has Infiltrated Science Funding

Scientists at work, as depicted by Diego Rivera in the Detroit Industry mural.

An international group of researchers is raising the alarm about how U.S. science funding is increasingly being tied to compliance with DEI (“Diversity,” “Equity,” and “Inclusion”) ideology. Their groundbreaking peer-reviewed research article documents how U.S. funding agencies have begun to impose DEI requirements as a prerequisite for STEMM funding and explains why this is a threat to academic freedom and research integrity.

The article will be published in the peer-reviewed science journal Frontiers in Research Metrics & Analytics. The article is titled Politicizing Science Funding Undermines Public Trust in Science, Academic Freedom, and the Unbiased Generation of Knowledge. A preprint is available here.

The paper is co-authored by an interdisciplinary team:

Igor R. Efimov (Biomedical Engineering), Jeffrey S. Flier (Medicine), Robert P. George (Jurisprudence), Anna I. Krylov (Chemistry), Luana Maroja (Biology), Julia Schaletzky (Life Sciences), Jay Tanzman (Statistics), and Abigail Thompson (Mathematics).

The paper exposes how DEI has spread much further and more deeply into core scientific disciplines than most people, including many scientists, realize. This has happened, in large part, by presidential executive order (specifically, EO 13985 and EO 14091), implemented through the budget approval process.

Co-Author Julia Schaletzky explains:

By design, many science-funding agencies are independent from the government and cannot be directed to do their work a certain way, but the Biden administration has circumvented this by forcing them to comply through the budget process, tying next year’s budget allocation to implementation of ideologically driven DEI plans at all levels.

Scientists seeking research funding must now profess their belief in the existence of “systemic barriers” in their institutions and present plans for how, through their research, they will advance DEI goals, such as preferential hiring of historically underrepresented groups (based on race, sex, gender, and sexual orientation) to achieve at least proportional representation in every domain of science.

Co-author Luana Maroja explains that identity-based allocation of resources is inherently unfair:

As a scientist from South America, I learned that science was often funded based on identity: “Who are you? Who are your friends?” Coming to the USA, I was amazed to see a very different approach to funding studies and hiring professors, where merit played a major role. The thought of losing this fairness in funding scares me. This is why I joined efforts to identify deviations from the meritocratic scientific metrics used for funding science.

Agencies require researchers to dedicate resources to DEI activities and some even recommend the hiring of paid DEI consultants. DEI loyalty oaths are now integral to the evaluation of proposals.

How does this look in practice?

In a truly Orwellian manner, DOE has pledged to “update the DOE Merit Review Program to improve equitable outcomes for DOE awards.” Scientists seeking DOE funding must include a PIER (Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research) plan. DOE “encourages” applicants to consider the composition of the project team, including project personnel and partnering institutions, as well as “inclusive and equitable plans for recognition on publications and presentations.”

NASA advises applicants to dedicate a part of their time and budget to DEI activities, to hire DEI experts as consultants and to “pay them well.” Hence, taxpayer money that could have been used to solve scientific and technological challenges are channeled to well-paid “DEI experts,” who have little expertise in the conduct of science. Given that the DEI plans are evaluated by the panels that include 50% scientists and 50% “DEI experts,” the self-interest of the DEI industry is evident.

According to corresponding author Anna Krylov:

Using science funding for the promotion and adoption of ideologically driven DEI programs undermines the integrity of science funding, contributes to the politicization of science, and generates the warranted resentment of the American people.

Schaletzky adds:

We should use taxpayers’ money to fund the best projects, with the greatest return on investment. While we fret over who should be part of the research team so that everyone is represented, China has been outpacing the U.S. in hypersonic and other technologies.

NIH’s activities toward advancing racial equity include an invitation to “Take the Pledge,” which includes committing to an idea that “equity, diversity, and inclusion drives success,” “setting up a consultation with an EDI [DEI] liaison,” and “ordering the 'EDI Pledge Poster' (or … creat[ing] your own) for your space and hav[ing] your team sign it.”

The current approach to linking DEI considerations to funding decisions weakens the traditional achievement- and merit-based selection criteria for funding, which means that money paid by hardworking taxpayers for the sake of the public good is not necessarily used to support the best scientific ideas and projects. This diversion of public funds undermines science’s ability to serve society. Moreover, when funding agencies use their power to further a particular political or ideological agenda, they undermine the integrity of science and rightfully contribute to public distrust of science and scientific institutions.

Co-author Robert George states:

It is time to acknowledge that a wrong turn has been taken and return to merit-based science funding.

The paper reminds readers about the lessons learned from the history of totalitarian regimes that subjugated science to ideology and practiced identity- and class-based polices: When merit is diluted by other criteria, the chances that the most-meritorious research is funded are diminished. 

Co-author Igor Efimov shares his personal experiences:

I have been blessed with an opportunity to enjoy academic freedom in the United States since 1992, when I immigrated from the Soviet Union. Freedom is not free, and it is fragile. We must defend it from authoritarianism of all stripes, left or right, and all types of identity politics. Science is the engine of innovation and the embodiment of freedom of thought. We will lose freedom if we do not defend meritocracy in science.

Update (07/23): The final version of the paper is now published on the journal website.

Update (07/26): A shorter version of the academic paper—a conspectus of sorts—has been published in The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Ruthless Politicization of Science Funding by R.P. George and A.I. Krylov.