Scientists and administrators explain why they left in protest

We are National Institutes of Health scientists and administrators with more than 50 years of collective civilian service.

Or, more precisely, we were NIH scientists and administrators.

Going into 2025, we anticipated changes with the new administration, but expected that rigorous scientific research would continue to be valued. After all, the country’s health research infrastructure, considered the most prestigious in the world, has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

Over the year, as we witnessed the Trump administration’s reckless policies, we tried to protect the science we had always stood for. We spoke up when we could, and in June we joined hundreds of our colleagues in signing the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter to the NIH director detailing how several new policies undermined scientific integrity and the institute’s mission.

But we can no longer lend our credibility to an organization that has lost its integrity. In recent months, each of us has independently made the decision to resign in protest against the actions of an administration that views science not as a process of building knowledge, but as a means to advance its political agenda. One of us quit last Friday.

We resigned because:

We protest the hypocrisy of NIH leaders who claim to protect academic freedom while censoring grants and staff communications. Instead of applying our skills and knowledge to science, we have been instructed to tell scientists competing for NIH funding to remove words like “equity,” “diversity,” “minority,” and “underserved,” regardless of the scientific relevance of those terms or the importance of the projects. To this day, grants continue to be “realigned” with administration priorities, a clear form of ideological coercion. The damage to research and the destabilizing effects on the scientific workforce will be long-lasting.

We are protesting an NIH leadership that purports to champion early-career scientists and prioritize “solution-oriented” health disparities research while selectively terminating and censoring these awards. We have seen unilateral withdrawals of applications and removals of active grants awarded to early-career scientists simply because they applied to funding announcements intended to broaden participation in the scientific workforce. The progress or promises of this science have never been taken into account.

Similarly, funding announcements seeking research to address health disparities disappeared from the public record because they were considered “DEI.” The associated applications were withdrawn without review and the awards were canceled. Some of these nominations and awards were in our portfolios and we urged reconsideration of these actions, providing justifications based on the merit of the awards and even their actual alignment with publicly stated priorities. Our requests went unanswered and the beneficiaries’ calls were ignored. These decisions will harm American communities and stifle scientific progress for decades to come.

We are protesting NIH leadership that is creating a culture of fear among the agency’s dedicated staff. Colleagues who challenge the illegal and politically motivated orders have been silenced, with some placed on leave or expelled. Each of us was told not to back down because “people would lose their jobs.” Abstentions heard in the hallways include: “What I’m being asked to do doesn’t seem right, but I need my health insurance” and “we need to keep our heads down and avoid putting a target on our backs.” These concerns should not be expressed in a world-class scientific institution.

Upholding our oath of office – “to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic” – and living up to our values ​​requires us to leave the jobs we once cherished.

We are by no means the only ones leaving. Many of our colleagues have resigned, retired early, or are actively taking steps to leave the NIH, sometimes at great personal sacrifice. Other colleagues wonder whether the costs of staying are higher than the costs of leaving.

By sharing our personal reasons for leaving, we hope to let our colleagues know that they are not alone in recognizing the wrongs that undermine the agency they loved.

A stable research funding infrastructure is essential to solving the country’s health problems and to supporting a functioning democracy where policies are based on evidence. Despite our departure from the NIH, we refuse to give up hope. We remain committed to advancing science and improving public health.

To researchers whose work uplifts vulnerable communities and who have dedicated their work to currently “hot button” topics – vaccines, health equity, sexual and gender minority health, climate change, misinformation: we must continue to speak out and speak out. We must also work together to create new opportunities for this essential work until the NIH resumes its mission.

To our colleagues who plan to remain at NIH and to those who continue to seek funding from NIH: the options before us are not good: continue in a compromised process or refuse to participate and risk professional stability. We wish you all good luck as you continue to weigh the impact of your choices on the scientific enterprise and on communities across the country. We know that you seek to do your best to meet ethical and practical challenges and maintain moral and scientific integrity. We are already on a slippery slope. Please decide where your red line is so that you can choose to act before the line is already behind you.

Not only is our health at stake, but this attack on science is an attack on freedom of speech and thought. What we have seen at the NIH is a threat to the fundamental freedoms we all cherish.

But we can fight back. The biggest lesson the four of us have learned over the past year is that what seems impossible and overwhelming when you’re sitting alone can start to seem achievable and urgent when you’re working with others who share your values. By working together, we can preserve our moral and scientific integrity. We can rebuild a strong biomedical research ecosystem, free from reckless political interference. Acting boldly now will help protect democracy and ensure better health for all.

Sylvia Chou, Ph.D., MPH, resigned Friday as program director at the National Cancer Institute. Paul Grothaus, Ph.D., retired early on December 31, 2025, from the position of program manager at the National Institute on Aging. Alexa Romberg, Ph.D., resigned on December 8, 2025 as Deputy Chief of the Prevention Research Directorate of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Vani Pariyadath, Ph.D., resigned on June 14, 2025 as chief of the Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Branch of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.. All authors write in a personal capacity.