Science in the US: Sexist and Racist Cuts

I compulsively read an article in the magazine Science from last week, which arrived via email from across the Atlantic. As I read on, my eyes bulged, and by the time I finished, the pressure on my eyes had tears streaming down my cheeks. I wiped them away and wrote. I wanted to share it. And here I am.

The article discusses the transformation of the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the second largest science funding institution in the US—which goes far beyond the proposed 55% budget cuts. The Trump administration wants to restructure the organization by reducing the current 37 divisions to five clusters focused on specific areas—AI, nuclear energy, and biotechnology—and abandoning cross-cutting support for basic science. Furthermore, flagship programs such as the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (which has spent 34 years promoting diversity in science) have been suspended because they violate the presidential directive to eliminate "diversity, equity, and inclusion" programs.

Your eyes are getting teary, aren't they? Well, there's more: the cuts are justified as "organizational" adjustments, but the data point to a different reality. Not only is support for basic research reduced, drastically weakening academic pluralism, but a discriminatory pattern against women and minorities is evident. The data is overwhelming: 58% of the research grants eliminated by the cuts belonged to women researchers, although they only direct 34% of active projects. The figures are equally chilling for Black researchers (17% of cancellations despite being 4% of the total) and Hispanic researchers, who are twice as likely to lose funding.

The NSF case illustrates a global phenomenon: how policies seemingly technocratic can be vehicles for systematic discrimination. When specific programs are canceled on the grounds that they "favor certain groups," what is really being done is perpetuating a status quo that has historically excluded these same groups. The structural barriers that have impeded equitable access to research for decades do not simply disappear by ignoring them. On the contrary, when corrective mechanisms are eliminated, these inequalities widen.

What is happening at the NSF should serve as a warning to us here in Catalonia and across Europe. Seemingly neutral policies for scientific excellence can hide deep biases. When we talk about "merit" without acknowledging that opportunities to demonstrate it have not been equitable, we are legitimizing discrimination. Furthermore, when we attack diversity, we are attacking the very quality of science.

Catalan and European scientific institutions must take note and strengthen their equity and inclusion mechanisms before it's too late. Because, as the US case demonstrates, discrimination can come wrapped in the rhetoric of neutrality and efficiency.