Fact Check, Part 3: Discriminatory censorship of research through grant screening
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya promises support for minority health and health disparities research while overseeing systems that undermine them
“You want a line between DEI and not DEI. My line is research that has no chance, is politicized, and has no chance of actually improving human health.”
—NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya falsely implying that health equity research is politicized and has no chance of improving human health
Thanks for sticking with us on part 3 of our series fact checking NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya. This series is brought to you by recent and current NIH staff (in our personal capacities), as part of our fight for scientific integrity at the NIH and for future treatments for our fellow Americans. These blogs reveal when Bhattacharya flagrantly mischaracterized, obfuscated, or just plain lied about the state of NIH under oath to members of Congress during the March 17 House Appropriations Committee hearing. In case you missed it, we recently covered NIH’s ability to spend 2026 funds and the harmful consequences of the rapid transition to multiyear funding.
Today, we address the disconnect between Bhattacharya’s stated commitment to minority health and health disparities research and the policies he has overseen that are undermining the field. Specifically, Bhattacharya’s NIH has implemented a discriminatory censorship tool that has disproportionately excluded people from racial and ethnic minority groups from the benefits of NIH research.
What Bhattacharya said:
In his opening statement:
“CRISPR-based gene editing has led to not just one, but two treatments for sickle cell disease, a painful condition that’s burdened families for generations, especially African American kids.”
In response to Representative Watson Coleman:
“I think it is absolutely essential to our mission that we do research that improves the health and wellbeing of minority populations”
“I guess I want to make a distinction, right? So the NIH, if we don’t do research that improves the health of minority populations, we’re not accomplishing our mission. It is vital. We’re not accomplishing our mission. We have to do research that improves the health of minority populations, right? So I don’t think there’s anybody that disagrees with that. Research that is not rigorous, not as overly politicized, that doesn’t actually have a chance of improving minority health, I don’t want to fund it.”
“You want a line between DEI and not DEI. My line is research that has no chance, is politicized, and has no chance of actually improving human health.”
What’s actually happening
Bhattacharya mandated the implementation of an NIH-wide grant screening process that involves a “computational text analysis tool” that screens grants for “terms that may potentially be associated with misalignment with the agency’s priorities” and then requires “renegotiation” of grants containing “misaligned” terms. While the set of “misaligned” terms continuously evolves, NIH staff compiled every term flagged for renegotiation across all grants at four different institutes between fall 2025 and early 2026 and provided the list to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. During that period, grants were flagged for including terms that identify racial/ethnic minority groups, such as “African American,” “Hispanic American,” and “Asian American.” (Notably, grants have not been flagged for including the terms “white American” or “European American.”) That this history of blatantly discriminatory censorship under Bhattacharya’s leadership led to the termination of sickle cell research makes his opening statement acknowledgment of benefits to the African American community from advances in sickle cell research grossly disingenuous. While NIH recently removed many racial/ethnic minority group terms from the list, grants continue to get flagged for terms such as “racial/ethnic minority” and “Latinx” as of mid-April 2026. As a result of these discriminatory screening processes implemented at NIH under Bhattacharya, funding for minority health and health disparities research has been terminated and delayed.
Despite multiple requests from NIH staff and the broader scientific community, Bhattacharya has not provided a definition of what constitutes “DEI.” His descriptions and current NIH screening policies often conflate multiple distinct concepts under the term ‘DEI,’ including health equity and health disparities research, minority health research, research workforce diversity, and inclusion of diverse populations in NIH research. Stating a priori without evidence that a given strategy will not improve health outcomes is not science, it is dogma. Every grant now being screened under Bhattacharya’s new process at NIH was judged in both peer and programmatic review to be innovative, meritorious, and worthy of scientific exploration funded by the NIH. Instead of deferring to scientists with expertise in the given field of research, Bhattacharya is overriding the scientific judgment of the research community. His unfounded claim that health equity research “has no chance of actually improving human health” runs counter to existing evidence, which shows that equity-focused quality of care interventions in maternal health and cancer have reduced disparities while also improving outcomes for all patients, regardless of racial or ethnic identity. Some terminated studies (currently reinstated under lawsuit) were adapting previously successful interventions to novel patient populations and settings, building practical knowledge to help healthcare settings improve real-world outcomes.
What you can do
Stay informed!
Read the full fact check on the 27UNIHTED website.
Follow us here or on bluesky, instagram, linkedin, or facebook for up-to-date content on what’s happening inside NIH.
Look out for the next post in our fact check series on political interference at NIH.
Inform others! Share this post with your colleagues.
Call your members of Congress and urge them to enact protections for NIH, including stopping the discriminatory censorship of grants and applications at NIH
If you’re submitting a grant application or progress report, don’t censor your submission in advance. Since the list of terms is both not shared and continually evolving, attempting to censor in advance will likely cause you to remove more than needed. Instead, submit your work as the science dictates. If needed (and desired), you will be able to work with your program officer to renegotiate.
Need more ideas? Check out our Advocacy Menu.