U of A researchers lament new National Institutes of Health demands

The National Institutes of Health announced a new policy this week that all universities wanting U.S. research money must stop all DEIA programs and any disinvestment from Israel, to the dismay of some University of Arizona researchers.

“If NIH money were eliminated, it would destroy medical research at the university,” said Felicia Sterling, a UA professor of immunobiology with research grants funded by NIH. “This would set back advances in cancer, infectious diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, neuroscience around Alzheimer’s and Dementia, pain research, etc. NIH and their funding of academic research makes the U.S. a leader in the world. The void that’s going to be created will be filled by other countries to be sure.”

Keith Maggert, a UA professor of molecular and cellular biology who has a grant co-funded by NIH, said holding hostage medical research, access to medication, the safe and steady progress of experimental drug and treatment trials, training, and everything else the NIH does, is “monstrous.”

“Make no mistake: People will die from lack of access to medical treatment because of the way (President Donald) Trump is using basic medical research as a tool of manipulation,” he said.

NIH announced the policy Monday, stating diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility or DEIA programs must end because “recipients must comply with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws” and that “federal anti-discrimination laws means federal civil rights law that protect individual Americans from discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion and national origin.”

The policy also states universities must not engage in a “discriminatory prohibited boycott” of Israel: “Discriminatory prohibited boycott means refusing to deal, cutting commercial relations, or otherwise limiting commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies or with companies doing business in or with Israel or authorized by, licensed by, or organized under the laws of Israel to do business.”

It’s already illegal for Arizona’s three public universities, including UA, to disinvest from Israel. The Arizona Legislature barred the state from such disinvestment in 2016 and updated the law in 2022 to specifically bar Arizona’s public universities and community colleges from disinvesting in Israel.

In fiscal year 2024, the UA received 313 awards from NIH, which totaled over $170 million, according to UA spokesperson Mitch Zak.

Of this amount, approximately $127 million was for direct costs and $44 million was for indirect costs, Tomás Díaz de la Rubia, UA’s senior vice president for research and innovation, stated in a court declaration related to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ previous lawsuit challenging NIH’s attempt to cap indirect costs at 15%. Indirect costs at the UA currently are at 54.5%.

Zak did not respond to specific questions about whether UA President Suresh Garimella plans to take further actions to eliminate DEIA.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Garimella sent a letter April 1 to Arizona Republican Senate President Warren Petersen detailing his actions complying with the Trump administration’s DEIA mandates.

Sterling and Maggert said NIH is one of the biggest federal funding sources to the UA, along with the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The loss of NIH funding “would be devastating for any university,” Sterling said.

Maggert said he isn’t sure of the exact amount at stake at the UA, but that his guess would be $300 million between “the indirect funds, the lost research, the terminated positions, etc.”

“The loss of NIH funding will destroy generations of scientists to come, breaking the current pipeline for training,” said Sterling. “This will set the U.S. back decades. The economic impact is also devastating for the states that will lose funding as NIH funding of universities generates $2.50 for every $1 invested.”

Sterling said the definition of DEIA seems to have been lost in the conversation.

“DEI initiatives were not designed to give people who are not qualified for a job the job or opportunity. They were designed to ensure that qualified applicants got a fair shake and were not judged or discriminated against based on skin color or natural origin or orientation, etc.,” she said.

Maggert said, while he is not a civil rights lawyer, his sense is that programs that support DEIA are not only legal, they are “legally required.” He said most people fervently against DEIA “have no understanding of what it is.”

“In the past, I’ve supplemented students from rural areas so they can stay in my lab over the summer, and (I) paid to buy a special attachment so someone with a disability could access the microscope,” Maggert said. “Now those programs are gone — so, I can’t hire students like that. Frankly, it seems like an institutionalized attack against people with low income, or people with black or brown skin, or people with bodies that require assistance, or people whose genders or sexes are different than his (President Trump’s).”

Lucy Ziurys, a Regents professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the UA, said the new NIH policy “likely isn’t legal and violates the U.S. Constitution,” adding, “I think serious litigation is the only answer.”