Disclaimer
The views I provide in this segment are founded in the following premises:
● Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect
● Everyone should have the opportunity to live a healthy life
● Everyone should have ready access to healthcare
● Everyone should have their health concerns addressed so as to achieve the above points
When I say "everyone" I mean EVERYONE. Your citizenship, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation/preference, or any other label that might differentiate you from another person does not matter. If you do not agree with these premises, then you may as well stop reading and go elsewhere in the digital domain, since you likely will not agree with anything I say below.
Background
It is of interest to me how the Heritage Foundation and current administration have deftly hijacked the term "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" (DEI) to mean something totally different from its original meaning. Their efforts have resulted in a large segment of the general public believing DEI meaning an unqualified person of color who was unjustly given an opportunity that should have gone to another person (primarily meaning a White individual). It has also become a weird synonym for racism, with tons of things being labeled as being "DEI."
If you don't believe this is the case, I will digress here a bit and point out one example. Immediately following the current administration's edict eliminating anything DEI related, groups across the country immediately began to scrub their websites of anything considered "DEI." This was particularly true of government operated websites. The various armed services began to scrub their websites by eliminating pages related to war heroes of color or the "wrong" sexual orientation, segregated units of color, anyone whose name included words that were on their verboten list (example, medal of honor recipient Thomas H. Gay), or any piece of equipment (yes, equipment) that had a name included words on their verboten list (example, the B-29 "Enola Gay" that dropped the first atomic bomb, which was named after the pilot's mother "Enola Gay Tibbets"). In the end, the only "White" heroes, units, etc. remained on these websites until public outcry forced many (not all) of them to be restored.
The chair of the Board of Trustees for the Japanese American National Museum (JANM), Bill Fujioka, declared that JANM would scrub nothing from their websites. When interviewed by The Los Angeles Times, Fujioka was quoted as saying "Our community is based on diversity, equity is guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and inclusion is what we believe in." This stance highlights the fact that life is not just about a subgroup of the population nor is it about how a subgroup views the world. It also highlights that we, as a country, have a long way to go in terms of achieving that idealistic society where everyone is treated equally with equal opportunity and "...with liberty and justice for all."
In terms of science, I am going to confine my comments to two very broad areas that have been adversely affected by new DEI-based mandates; research that includes components that this administration considers "DEI" and training opportunities. DEI in biomedical and basic research extends well beyond these two areas, but I focus on these two as they are the two I am most familiar with.
DEI in Research
I start this section by sharing a shot of a key segment of a grant termination letter received by one of my colleagues earlier this year when the first of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants were being clawed back.
Note some of the language, particularly the part that DEI-based studies are "...often used to support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics, which harms the health of Americans." Huh? This colleague was studying some of the challenges faced by certain racial groups and their ability to receive cancer treatment.
One has to remember that disease, infectious or chronic, does not care about any of the political or social factors that divide us as a people. It does not care about your political affiliation, religious preference, sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity....none of that matters. However, the risks underlying these diseases are significantly affected by these factors, which is why we need to do research in an attempt to understand those inequities, how they affect health, and how we might rectify those inequities to improve health. The idea that DEI-related work "...harms the health of Americans" is not only laughable, but cutting off such research is what will harm the health of Americans and people across the globe. The fact that this administration is labeling research as "DEI-related" ignores the fact that health is very diverse, inequalities exist, and when trying to improve the health of Americans, everyone should be included.
An example of this is improving ones lifestyle to either prevent or deal with a chronic disease. Typically, when you doctor notices you might be at elevated risk for a chronic disease like diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease, they will tell you to stop smoking, cut your alcohol consumption, increase your physical activity, and change your diet to eating healthier foods. Sounds straightforward, doesn't it? Unfortunately, because of historic racism, such as redlining, individuals in certain environments cannot easily make these changes. Why is that? What can we do to change that? What are the components that create barriers for these individuals? What changes are most effective? These and other questions are research topics that are studied by a number of investigators. There may also be genetic factors that play into how these inequities affect disease (an area of research interest for me). However, researchers now find themselves unable to study these problems, because they are considered "DEI-related" and no longer an NIH "priority." The politicization of science (a future topic in this series) has formalized a decision before ascertaining the research answer. In other words, rather than research driving decisions, we are allowing politics to drive the decisions. This has negative consequences for everyone's health.
We should be performing research to address everyone's health issues and identify those things we can change to improve the health. Preventable morbidity and mortality is at the core of most biomedical research and the investment the United States has made has put us at the forefront and made us worldwide leaders in biomedical research. However, these new restrictions and the subsequent downstream effects beyond the actual research, like unemployment for staff, is having catastrophic effects on U.S> research that even if reversed tomorrow, will have negative effects for decades. The idea that somehow DEI-based research "supports unlawful discrimination" can only come from a political agenda that prioritizes certain groups or ideals over others. In other words, using the veil of discrimination to claim unlawful discrimination. Again, disease doesn't care about these things and removing this area of research limits our ability to reduce morbidity and mortality.
DEI in Training
A significant number of training programs have been terminated and research support for young investigators just starting their research careers have come to a screeching halt because the program or research has been declared "DEI-related" and, again, not an NIH priority. However, the extremely biased interpretation of DEI taken by this administration has actually terminated opportunities for a wide spectrum of individuals; not just those of color. I can use myself as an example.
Although I was fortunate that my father worked his ass off to provide us with a middle class lifestyle, the fact that both my parents never finished high school and English was not their primary language created certain barriers for my own educational path. My parents did not have "connections" to help me find extracurricular activities like research experiences that my "connected" friends easily found. I could not turn to them for advice on how to apply to college or what to write in my personal statement. Although technically middle class, our financial situation raised concerns about how to pay for college.... my folks nor I were aware of financial aid. In other words, I had to navigate all these things pretty much on my own, relying on friends and my high school's college counselor (who, in retrospect, was not all that good). I did have the great fortune that my folks put a premium on education and I performed well in school. So, when I got accepted into various universities, the financial aid was fairly generous. When I told my folks I wanted to go to graduate school, my dad thought he was going to have to fork out more money. However, I was supported by an NIH training grant that covered my tuition and paid me a stipend. Similarly, when I transitioned to my post-doctoral training, I was initially supported by an NIH training grant, before I was able to apply for and received my own NIH fellowship. These opportunities allowed me to apply for and receive my first independent grant, a young investigator award from the American Diabetes Association. That initial award then led to my first NIH research grant.
The various programs that supported my training and that first young investigator award are what allowed me to build my scientific career and become the successful biomedical investigator I am today. Without them, it is not clear to me how my career path would have evolved. However, with NIH now eliminating many training programs arguing they are "DEI", many young investigators will not have the same opportunities that I had. I was an example of why we need such programs, but I had one advantage that many did not....I lived in Los Angeles. There were numerous universities, research labs, and other institutions that would allow me to seek training opportunities. But what if I had lived in the middle of the country where the density of universities is much lower? What if I came from a low socioeconomic family who could not afford to send me elsewhere to find such opportunities?
These are just a some of reasons why these training programs exist. It's not about advancing certain individuals because of their skin color or religion. Many are just like I was...disadvantaged due to various other circumstances. These programs help identify young individuals with great potential to help nurture them and train them to become our next generation of scientists. These training programs recognize that society is not fair and equitable and that we need to uplift some who show great promise, but face certain barriers. It's not about giving someone an unfair advantage.
This administration faults DEI as discriminatory and that merit should be a primary factor in deciding many aspects of society. Merit is important and should be a significant component of any decision. However, making decisions solely based on merit assumes all other things are equal. Sadly, society does not work that way, which is why many of these training programs were created. Bright and intelligent people of color, with physical disabilities, or with financial hurdles many times do not get to choose science as a career path because of those inequities. Many of these training programs were designed to give them opportunities. I have been involved in three such program, one of which I co-directed. The goals across all three of these programs are the same; provide research opportunities to undergraduate students who might not otherwise might not have access to research opportunities. Fortunately, one of these programs exists without Federal funding and another so far continues to receive Federal funding. However, the one I co-direct has lost its Federal funding and likely trained its last cohort this past summer. It is doubtful we will identify an alternative source of funding by next summer. Our program, over the past 7 years, have helped over 40 undergraduate students from varied backgrounds gain research experience and transition into medical or graduate school. These include a student with a hearing disability, a student from Guam, and a Native American student living on a reservation, just as examples. I was extremely proud of the students we trained and how their various careers are moving forward. I worry about those who might be affected by these recent changes that may derail their career paths.
DEI means different things to different people. However, as Bill Fujioka noted, our communities are based in diversity (even if you cannot see it), equity is supposed to be guaranteed to us in the Constitution, and we should not be excluding anyone just because we do not like some perceived characteristic. Merit-based decisions are only fair when the playing field is level and these programs were working to try to make that playing field a bit more level. They were not designed to replace merit with some other characteristic. In science, that's the last thing you want to do....have someone who is not qualified to be doing the job (the next topic in this series).
No comments:
Post a Comment