While the reinterpretation or exclusion of a word here and there may seem inconsequential in the moment, these changes add up quickly. In recent months, President Donald Trump’s administration has rewritten the vocabulary of scientific papers, programs and grant applications, creating sweeping implications for scientific scholarship.
The Trump administration has frequently targeted language associated with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in research cuts. Scientists have been forced to phase this language out of scientific writing under threat of losing federal funding.
The National Science Foundation (NSF), an agency that supports science and engineering research nationwide, has flagged the words “women,” “diverse,” “trauma” and “equity,” among others, as words that, in scientific papers, violate one of Trump’s most recent executive orders. The erasure of such words hinders equity considerations when awarding grants, particularly for research into conditions like HIV/AIDS and breast cancer, which disproportionately affect certain vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, some of the erased vocabulary, including the words “barriers” and “excluded,” have been flagged by the NSF despite having little to no connection to DEI initiatives in their original context.
These changes will affect the scientific process at all levels. Banned words surrounding gender and sexuality will affect hiring processes, study participants, scientific conferences and training seminars. Fear of funding cuts may force people — both scientists and the people who benefit from their work — to act cautiously. For example, the wording of relevant executive orders has been so vague that some people have begun to “obey in advance,” or adopt measures more drastic than those stated directly in the executive order. Therefore, studies will become even more unrepresentative, inaccessible for patient populations and difficult to acquire funding for.
These changes will also affect students pursuing the sciences. For example, FarmFlux, a NASA program, is among a group of programs that removed wording on their website aimed at recruiting students from diverse backgrounds. Additionally, NASA removed its Here to Observe program, which identifies student groups underrepresented in astronomy and actively connects them with opportunities. These program changes are reflective of the “obey in advance” mentality, making broad leaps that exclude marginalized groups based on the federal government’s current anti-DEI stance.
Climate and ecosystem science is also facing serious threats over a single contested word. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency responsible for the conservation of wildlife and their habitats, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which manages the conservation of coastal and marine ecosystems, jointly proposed reinterpreting the word “harm” in the Endangered Species Act, which prohibits actions that would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect endangered species.”
The existing interpretation of “harm,” as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995, considers habitat harm a form of harm against endangered species. This interpretation is backed by scientific leaders, including Andrew Bowman, president of the Defenders of Wildlife environmental group, who said most species facing serious survival threats are especially threatened by habitat loss. By reinterpreting “harm” to no longer include damage to the habitats of endangered species, protections currently preventing the oil and logging industries from using these habitats would be overturned, putting many endangered species at higher risk.
Language of inclusion in clinical trials and drug development is another new area of contention. Public trust in new medications and treatment decreases substantially when diverse populations do not see themselves represented in the clinical development population. Executive orders preventing language associated with DEI have dismantled programs run by the federal government aimed at identifying populations excluded from clinical trials and helping facilitate access to these clinical trials. Halting measures to include these populations in trials poses potential issues in facilitating widespread uptake of treatments, both curative and preventive.
Furthermore, underrepresented groups may not be able to access novel medication even if they do seek it, as access to and coverage for treatment may be limited only to people who were represented in clinical trials. Without the data to show that a particular drug or therapy is safe and effective for underrepresented groups, members of these groups may not reap the benefits of research and development.
Because the allowed language has been limited, scientists must now devote a part of their finite time and resources to adjusting their research in order to prevent funding cuts. At the same time, efforts to diversify access to science careers and research beneficial to diverse populations are being dismantled. While the nuances of these overhauls are yet to reveal themselves, it is clear that language is becoming a major point of contention between the Trump administration and the scientific community.