The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) was shocked to learn on April 2 that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is cutting its Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) program. According to FASEB, this program has supported 193 scholars and five organizational centers during the past four-year funding period.
The elimination of the MOSAIC program threatens to undermine decades of progress in diversifying the scientific workforce by removing critical support for early-career researchers from underrepresented backgrounds who are essential to the future of science. The decision to defund diversity-driven programs like MOSAIC could set back the scientific community’s efforts to ensure equitable access and opportunity for all aspiring scientists.
According to NPR, the MOSAIC program uses an inclusive definition of diversity, considering factors beyond race, gender and disability in selecting awardees. This includes individuals raised in economically disadvantaged households, those whose parents did not obtain a college education and those from rural areas.
There is a widespread misunderstanding from both the federal administration and the general public that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives only serve racial minorities. In truth, programs like MOSAIC are designed to support many underrepresented groups, including veterans and people with disabilities. This flawed perception of DEI allows policymakers to justify reducing or eliminating vital funding and support.
NPR also reported that the MOSAIC program funds research for many medical diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and cancer, which affect millions of Americans. For instance, more than seven million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease — and that number is expected to rise. By supporting research on these common health issues, MOSAIC helps find solutions to critical medical problems. This isn’t just about dismantling DEI, as President Donald Trump claims — it’s about cutting off research that impacts millions of people.
Ensuring diversity among researchers is essential, as varied perspectives lead to more innovative, inclusive and effective scientific solutions. It encourages researchers to build meaningful relationships with community partners who serve people from varied backgrounds and lived experiences. Diversity also promotes practices that foster inclusion — such as accommodating participants’ needs, offering fair compensation and establishing trust with vulnerable populations like those facing mental health challenges, substance use or trauma.
The importance of diversity extends beyond just the research process — it shapes the direction and outcomes of scientific discovery. A diverse research team enriches both the planning and execution of studies, increasing the chances that the solutions developed will be meaningful and applicable across different communities. Such inclusivity also promotes ethical research practices, ensuring that all participants feel respected, valued and represented in the scientific narrative.
The growing concern over political influence in academia was reinforced by more than 150 college and university presidents, who recently co-signed a letter opposing the Trump administration’s attempts to impose policy changes in exchange for federal funding. The petition highlights concerns that political control should not suppress the diversity of ideas and academic freedom. Presidents of colleges and universities have stressed the importance of protecting the autonomy of universities to promote independent research and critical analysis.
The removal of the MOSAIC program is a big loss for efforts to diversify the scientific field and provide opportunities for underrepresented groups. Without programs like MOSAIC, the scientific community may miss out on the new ideas and solutions that diverse researchers bring, which could slow progress in important health research.
As the discussion about diversity in science continues, it’s important to remember that diversity and merit can work together to strengthen research. While some argue that demographic identity should not influence research funding decisions, including researchers from different backgrounds can lead to better solutions that meet the needs of all communities. Ensuring equal opportunities for all scientists — no matter their background — should remain a priority for the future of research.
Maya Berger is an Opinion Intern for the spring 2025 quarter. She can be reached at bergerm2@uci.edu.