The National Institutes of Health has withdrawn a policy on scientific integrity that was designed to shield research and official communications from political influence, attributing the retraction to the policy’s emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

The revocation occurred last Friday evening, as part of efforts to align with current governmental priorities, a statement issued by NIH indicated. The agency, recognized as the world’s leading financier of medical research, will now adhere to the wider scientific integrity policy of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Despite this change, NIH maintains its dedication to the principles of scientific integrity, the announcement noted.

Support for Science Journalism

If you appreciate this content, consider backing our distinguished journalism by subscribing. Your subscription aids in continuing to deliver significant stories that shape our understanding of scientific advancements and ideas in today’s world.

Originally updated in the latter stages of the Biden administration, the NIH policy underscored that “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) are vital elements throughout the scientific process.” The policy detailed that focusing on DEIA not only enhances the success of the scientific workforce but also boosts innovation in science usage and ensures more equitable participation from diverse communities.

No reference to such diversity-focused language exists in the HHS policy that NIH will now follow.

An HHS spokesperson, Andrew Nixon, explained that the diversity language led to the policy’s cancellation. He stated that the NIH policy had been exploited by the Biden administration to force DEI and gender ideology into research agendas.

Nixon argued that withdrawing the policy would allow NIH to return science to its highest standards and safeguard scientific integrity through adherence to the HHS policy.

This development has caused concern among scientists and public health experts who believe that the Trump administration has already politicized science by dismantling HHS units dedicated to health equity and climate change, halting research grants on racial health disparities, and deleting health data from the HHS website.

Liz Borkowski from George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health suggested that when a policy is rolled back, it often raises suspicions that violations were imminent had the policy been left unchanged.

This policy rescission happened in the second week of NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s term. Bhattacharya, who has previously studied racial health disparities, assured during his confirmation that he would not let NIH be swayed by President Trump’s executive orders limiting funds and communications for diversity and inclusion efforts.

“Addressing the health needs of minorities is a crucial priority for me,” Bhattacharya reassured Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), dismissing concerns that presidential directives would hinder this focus.

Researchers in environmental and climate health funded by NIH are particularly anxious that their grants might be targeted next. Many of these grants explore how climate change-induced illnesses disproportionately affect communities of color and other marginalized groups.

Rescinding the NIH’s scientific integrity policy “endangers all science,” according to Jennifer Jones of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She noted recent unsettling actions within HHS, such as the dismissal of 10,000 staff and the forced resignation of the FDA’s chief vaccine officer, Dr. Peter Marks. In his resignation letter, Marks accused HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of promoting vaccine misinformation as a measles outbreak spreads nationwide.

“Truth and transparency are evidently not valued by the current secretary. Instead, he prefers to perpetuate misinformation and lies,” Marks stated in his letter.

Jones emphasized the importance of scientific integrity policies across HHS agencies, advocating for systems that allow NIH employees to report political interference without fear of reprisal.

“We need robust policies to protect the scientists still at the agency and those whose research is funded, shielding them from a government that seems driven by conspiracy theories,” she concluded.

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.