NIH Grant Cuts Disproportionately Harm Women, Early-Career Scientists

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) allocated its full budget in 2025, but a new study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that recent grant terminations may have disproportionately impacted female researchers, particularly those early in their careers. This finding adds to a long-standing concern about inequities in scientific funding, often described as a “leaky pipeline” where researchers from marginalized communities are lost at various stages of their careers.

The analysis reveals that women experienced a larger percentage of their grant funds terminated compared to men – an average of 57.9% versus 48.2%. This disparity was most pronounced among doctoral students and assistant professors, where 60% of terminated grants were led by women. While men comprised the majority of those at more senior levels (postdoctoral fellows, associate professors, and full professors) whose grants were cancelled, the impact on those earlier in their careers raises significant concerns about the future of women in science.

A Persistent Pipeline Problem

The concept of the “leaky pipeline” in academia has been used for years to describe the attrition of women and other underrepresented groups as they progress through the stages of scientific training and career development. The metaphor highlights how potential is lost at each step, from undergraduate education to securing independent research funding and achieving leadership positions. Research on the issue indicates that while the initial influx of women into scientific fields is strong, their representation diminishes at higher levels.

Donna Ginther, an economist at the University of Kansas who studies NIH funding demographics, though not involved in this specific paper, confirmed that the findings align with what she’s been observing. “This is a great paper that confirms what I have been hearing in the community. Young and female investigators disproportionately lost NIH funding,” she said. Ginther emphasized the particular harm to early-career researchers, as these terminations can derail promising scientific trajectories.

What the Data Show: Grant Terminations and Career Stages

The study, authored by Diego F. M. Oliveira and colleagues, examined the impact of grant terminations in 2025. Researchers found that women and early-career scientists were more likely to hold smaller grants and to be at earlier stages of those projects when funding was cut. This combination is particularly damaging, as a larger proportion of their planned research activity was interrupted. “The main implication is that funding shocks do not affect all researchers equally, they interact with existing structural features of the system,” explained Oliveira.

The precarity extends beyond simply losing funding. Researchers with smaller grants often have less flexibility to adapt to setbacks or pursue innovative, potentially high-risk research. Mytien Nguyen, an M.D.-Ph.D. Candidate at Yale University who has studied inequities in “elite” investigators (those with multiple concurrent grants), points out that well-funded labs offer a level of privilege that allows researchers to focus on groundbreaking work without constantly worrying about basic resources.

Beyond Gender: Impact on Researchers of Color

The study also revealed a concerning trend regarding funding for Black researchers. The number of NIH “fellowship” grants awarded to Black researchers dropped by 40% between 2024 (205 awards) and 2025 (122 awards). While fellowship grants for white researchers also decreased (by 9%), the disparity for Black researchers is substantial. This data was initially reported by the science blogger DrugMonkey.

Several factors may contribute to this decline. Ginther suggests that researchers from marginalized groups are more likely to study topics that are perceived as politically sensitive, potentially making their grant applications more vulnerable. NIH research also indicates that Black applicants tend to focus on population health research, which historically receives less funding than basic science.

NIH Response and Ongoing Disparities

In response to the study, an NIH spokesperson stated that the agency allocated its full budget in 2025 and supports a fair and objective review process based on scientific merit. The spokesperson also highlighted the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s commitment to expanding opportunities for early-career researchers through initiatives like the “Unified Funding Strategy,” implemented in December, which aims to consider career stage and workforce needs in funding decisions. More details on the Unified Funding Strategy were released in December.

However, gender disparities in NIH funding predate the current administration. While the proportion of grants awarded to women has steadily increased over the past three decades, and women now comprise over half of training grant awardees, significant inequities persist. Women often receive less funding than men, are less likely to hold multiple NIH grants simultaneously, and are underrepresented on study sections – the peer review bodies that determine grant funding. Studies have shown that women tend to receive less money than their male counterparts, even when their research is equally meritorious.

The Broader Implications and What Comes Next

The termination of F31 awards, designed to fund doctoral students and often prioritized for “diverse” applicants, is particularly troubling. Jahn Jaramillo, a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Miami whose own F31 grant was terminated despite receiving a perfect peer review score, described the impact as a betrayal of trust. His research focused on HIV in the Latino immigrant community, a topic aligned with the administration’s stated goal of ending the HIV epidemic. Jaramillo’s experience highlights the potential for identity to be weaponized, creating confusion and disappointment within the communities researchers aim to serve.

Looking ahead, continued monitoring of NIH funding patterns is crucial. The agency’s commitment to the Unified Funding Strategy and expanding opportunities for early-career researchers will need to be rigorously evaluated for its effectiveness in addressing these disparities. Further research is needed to understand the complex interplay between funding shocks, existing structural biases, and the career trajectories of scientists from underrepresented groups. The NIH will likely face ongoing scrutiny to ensure its funding processes are truly equitable and support a diverse and thriving scientific community.