Senate Committee Scrutinizes NSF Grants Over Diversity and Inclusion Language

Introduction

A recent Senate committee investigation into grants awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) has raised significant concerns regarding the consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in scientific research funding. This scrutiny focuses on how concepts related to race, gender, and societal status are impacting the evaluation of scientific proposals.

Historical Context

The requirement for reviewers to consider a grant’s “broader impacts” was established in the 1990s under the direction of former NSF director Lane. This provision was designed to encourage research that benefits society at large, particularly through the increased participation of underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The broader impacts can be realized through various avenues, including promoting STEM education, developing educators, and building a diverse workforce.

DEI Grants Under Review

The Senate committee’s investigation revealed thousands of grant proposals that included DEI elements. Projects that explicitly sought to increase diversity, such as a $1.2 million grant awarded to the Colorado School of Mines for training engineering students to promote equity, were flagged. However, the review also captured proposals that merely referenced diversity or studied varied populations. For example, a project by researcher Lipomi was highlighted for including a diverse group of participants and analyzing results through the lens of socioeconomic status.

The report criticized the integration of notions like race and gender into scientific assessments, claiming that such considerations undermine the integrity of "hard science." It specifically pointed to projects that identified participants as underrepresented or socioeconomically disadvantaged as problematic.

Terms Under Scrutiny

The investigation identified a long list of terms that it deemed ‘red flags’ in grant applications. These included language related to:

• Gender (e.g., "female," "women")
• Ethnicity (e.g., "Black," "White," "Hispanic," "Indigenous")
• Disability (e.g., "minority," "socioeconomic")
• Environmental Justice (e.g., "climate change," "clean energy")

The committee argued that these descriptors and associated concepts detract from the scientific focus of research proposals, potentially creating biases within the evaluation process.

Controversy and Response

The pushback against the committee’s findings is notable, with advocates for diversity in STEM arguing that inclusive practices are essential for advancing equitable research outcomes. Critics contend that the current scrutiny could lead to a chilling effect on researchers who seek to address societal disparities through their work. The discussion illustrates a broader national debate over how to balance scientific objectivity with social responsibilities.

Conclusion and Implications

The Senate committee’s examination highlights a pivotal moment in the relationship between science funding and social considerations. The future of the NSF’s broader impacts requirement may be at stake, as policymakers navigate the often contentious intersection of inclusivity and scientific rigor. As the conversation continues, the implications for researchers and institutions focusing on diversity will be profound, potentially reshaping the landscape of grant funding and scientific inquiry in the years to come.

Ultimately, this scrutiny may serve as a litmus test for how the scientific community responds to societal needs and values—a crucial aspect of maintaining both the integrity of science and its relevance in addressing contemporary challenges.