arXiv preprint ·
Still funded, no longer counted: how NIH's 2025 award reviews changed what the government counts as minority health research
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Funders know their portfolios through software that classifies award text. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports its spending in more than 300 categories mined this way, and work on classification and indicators treats the text as the applicant's to write. In 2025 NIH required "DEI language" removed from awards not supporting DEI activities, and so policed the words it also counts. We followed population names through 37,790 continuing awards, checking them against practice records. Names were informative: in new awards with trial baselines, a title naming Black populations predicted a 60-percentage-point higher enrolled share. Text features predicted which names survived, and practice records added little. NIH's minority health category followed the names: of continuing projects carrying it, 99.4% with unchanged summaries kept it, against 15.7% of those whose summaries no longer named a racial or ethnic population, while the projects kept their funding. Blinded reviewers judged 42 of a random 50 such losses to have met its definition in FY2024. Comparing both summaries of 70 name losses, they found aims concerning the population recast in 49. Read alone, 63 FY2025 summaries no longer met the definition. Awards naming sexual and gender minorities were recorded as terminated 37.8 points more often after adjustment for listed terms, institute and activity. We call the mechanism word targeting, its boundary population targeting, and its product uncounted science: funded research the count no longer records. The count followed the edited text, and the edited record cannot say whether the research changed with it.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Digital Libraries
Asterism: Exploring and Synthesizing Scattered Observations into Literature-Grounded Hypotheses and Theories
Towards cross-cultural study of folksong lyrics with machine translation
More Claims, Less Evidence: Bounded Verification of AI-Generated Digital Knowledge Artifacts
TRACE: Target-Aware Retrieval, Attributed Evidence, and Contract-Constrained Extraction for LitTraceQA
Errors of LLM-Assisted Literature Retrieval in Environmental Science: A Comparison Study of Abstract versus Full-text Based Prompts
Get the few papers worth your time in Digital Libraries every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.