www.cidrap.umn.edu/anti-science/women-early-career-investigators-hit-hardest-2025-nih-grant-cuts
Women, early-career investigators hit hardest by 2025 NIH grant cuts
Laine Bergeson
Today at 2:28 p.m.
Anti-science
Public Health
Using federal grant data, a team led by a researcher at the University of North Dakota identified 2,291 terminated NIH awards, plus an additional 1,534 grants that were frozen mid-project from February to August last year. The team found that women and early-career investigators were more likely to hold smaller grants with a higher proportion of committed funds when support ended, and those projects “appeared especially vulnerable to abrupt changes.”
In addition, projects led by women had more ongoing funding in place at the time of cancelation (57.9% vs 48.2% for men). “Consequently, women lost a greater portion of unrealized scientific output,” they write.
Many early-career projects led by women
Projects led by early-career investigators were also disproportionately affected by the cuts; many of those projects were led by women. “Among assistant professors, 59.8% of terminated projects were women-led. Women represented 60.2% of affected doctoral candidates and 48.0% of postdoctoral fellows,” report the researchers.
The 2025 terminations unevenly affected women investigators and key career stages, magnifying long-term consequences for the U.S. biomedical workforce
The team estimated that the $2.5 billion in canceled grants translated to roughly $6.3 billion in lost economic output, and because women led a larger share of the training and early-career grants that were eliminated, “the terminations disproportionately disrupted stages of the biomedical pipeline where women are most represented,” they write.
“Overall, the 2025 terminations unevenly affected women investigators and key career stages, magnifying long-term consequences for the U.S. biomedical workforce,” the investigators add.
Funding cuts profoundly alter scientific landscape
The findings highlight how dependent the biomedical research community is on federal support and how abrupt funding cuts can profoundly alter the scientific landscape.
The researchers did not measure the long-term career impacts of the cuts, so the findings should be “interpreted as unrealized benchmarks rather than verified outcomes,” they caution. At the same time, their observations match previous research that suggests that funding interruptions for early-career scientists can disrupt research continuity and stymie career advancement.
Maintaining US scientific leadership will depend on paying sustained attention to equity, stability, and support for researchers, the authors conclude. And, “as additional data emerge, an important direction for future research will be to measure directly how the magnitude and distribution of funding cuts across researcher groups shape the trajectory of the U.S. scientific workforce,” they write.
Women, early-career investigators hit hardest by 2025 NIH grant cuts
Laine Bergeson
Today at 2:28 p.m.
Anti-science
Public Health
An analysis of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding changes in early to mid 2025 found that nearly 2,300 active research grants were abruptly terminated, eliminating roughly $2.5 billion in funding and disrupting thousands of scientific projects, according to a study published this week in PNAS. While cuts occurred across all regions and institution types, the findings show that early-career investigators and women were disproportionately affected.Using federal grant data, a team led by a researcher at the University of North Dakota identified 2,291 terminated NIH awards, plus an additional 1,534 grants that were frozen mid-project from February to August last year. The team found that women and early-career investigators were more likely to hold smaller grants with a higher proportion of committed funds when support ended, and those projects “appeared especially vulnerable to abrupt changes.”
In addition, projects led by women had more ongoing funding in place at the time of cancelation (57.9% vs 48.2% for men). “Consequently, women lost a greater portion of unrealized scientific output,” they write.
Many early-career projects led by women
Projects led by early-career investigators were also disproportionately affected by the cuts; many of those projects were led by women. “Among assistant professors, 59.8% of terminated projects were women-led. Women represented 60.2% of affected doctoral candidates and 48.0% of postdoctoral fellows,” report the researchers.
The 2025 terminations unevenly affected women investigators and key career stages, magnifying long-term consequences for the U.S. biomedical workforce
The team estimated that the $2.5 billion in canceled grants translated to roughly $6.3 billion in lost economic output, and because women led a larger share of the training and early-career grants that were eliminated, “the terminations disproportionately disrupted stages of the biomedical pipeline where women are most represented,” they write.
“Overall, the 2025 terminations unevenly affected women investigators and key career stages, magnifying long-term consequences for the U.S. biomedical workforce,” the investigators add.
Funding cuts profoundly alter scientific landscape
The findings highlight how dependent the biomedical research community is on federal support and how abrupt funding cuts can profoundly alter the scientific landscape.
The researchers did not measure the long-term career impacts of the cuts, so the findings should be “interpreted as unrealized benchmarks rather than verified outcomes,” they caution. At the same time, their observations match previous research that suggests that funding interruptions for early-career scientists can disrupt research continuity and stymie career advancement.
Maintaining US scientific leadership will depend on paying sustained attention to equity, stability, and support for researchers, the authors conclude. And, “as additional data emerge, an important direction for future research will be to measure directly how the magnitude and distribution of funding cuts across researcher groups shape the trajectory of the U.S. scientific workforce,” they write.