Words that shape the future of research

April 4, 2025

The scientific community has been left with a lot of unanswered questions in response to recent executive orders in the US.¹ The new policies, which insist on the recognition of two genders only—male and female— appear to undermine Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and have led to the creation of a list of flagged words that could trigger a review of research funding applications.²

Since the introduction of the executive orders, healthcare agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have removed a host of webpages providing vital information on topics such as gender, LGBTQ issues, and sexually transmitted infections.^{3, 4} The removal of which has hindered doctors and other healthcare professionals from providing timely and effective patient care.⁵

The NIH (National Institutes of Health) funding for universities' overhead costs is affecting major academic research programmes, causing administrators to abandon research studies and revoke offers of admission to graduate students. With reimbursement limits impacting essential expenses such as lab maintenance and administrative support, institutions face funding shortfalls that threaten critical research in cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and diabetes. As a result, universities are scaling back projects, laying off staff, and disrupting the future of medical research.⁶

Additionally, a list of keywords, including ‘women’, ‘minority’, ‘disabled’, and ‘gender’ has been created and circulated. The list will be used to monitor certain grant applications and active research projects.¹ Detection of any of the keywords triggers assessment by the National Science Foundation (NSF) who determine whether the proposal violates the executive order’s restrictions.²

While this does not amount to an outright ban, this new level of scrutiny may lead to delays or even discourage researchers from exploring crucial areas of study.

This sudden policy shift highlights the real-life influence of language. The use of accurate, representative terminology is crucial for studying specific health issues. Research into topics like reproductive health, maternal care, and gender disparities in treatment relies on the use of precise language. Flagging or restricting these key terms in the research lexicon creates hurdles and delays that can have big consequences on health outcomes.

This is an opportunity for those of us in the scientific community to reflect not only on the ways research is conducted but also on the values that underpin it. It’s also a moment to remind ourselves why DEI is not an add-on in research, but the foundation.

Why representation matters in research

DEI principles seek to address gaps in representation. They help us to keep the diversity of the population at the heart of every stage of research, from study design to participant recruitment. When research is inclusive, it tells us more definitively whether the intervention benefits all or only some of the population. It’s clear then, that inclusive research is central to addressing, or at least understanding, inequity in health outcomes.⁷

A focus on women

Women make up half the population, but historically, they have been underrepresented in medical research. This imbalance doesn’t just affect the numbers in published papers. It has tangible effects on health recommendations, safety standards, and treatment protocols. For instance, heart disease is a leading cause of death for women worldwide, but much of the research on heart disease historically centred on male subjects. The result is a diagnosis and treatment gap that costs lives.⁸

Today, the inclusion of women, both as researchers and as subjects of studies, ties directly into the broader conversation about equity in health systems.

Barriers to progress

Medical research is already an intricate, multi-layered process that requires careful navigation of funding applications, ethics reviews, and data collection challenges. Adding further administrative hurdles or flagged terms could unintentionally limit the inclusion of underrepresented groups—such as minority populations, women, and gender-specific health issues—further widening existing gaps in research.

Why DEI is not just an option

DEI in clinical trials is essential for building trust, ensuring representation, and developing more effective treatments for everyone.⁹ When research includes participants from diverse racial, ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds, the results are more applicable to the broader population, reducing health disparities and improving patient outcomes.¹⁰ A lack of diversity can lead to treatments that are less effective or even harmful for underrepresented groups, only adding to inequities in healthcare.¹⁰

Pushing forward

The impact of additional hurdles and barriers in research ripples further than the issue of funding and approvals. Research builds on shared knowledge, thrives on unlimited curiosity, and is shaped by diversity.

For everyone invested in equitable health outcomes, this moment calls for recommitment to DEI principles—not as a response to restriction, but as a proactive strategy for creating systems that work for everyone.

By continuing to champion inclusion, we can move closer to a world where research reflects everyone, and outcomes are better for all.

References