Scott Delaney and Noam Ross, two dedicated scientists, have embarked on a significant venture to document the extent of grant terminations issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). By merging government data and crowdsourced submissions, they have created what seems to be the most comprehensive accountability system regarding biomedical research project halts funded by the world’s largest research supporter.
“The community of affected scientists is really what drove this. That’s really what created it,” Delaney stated. He emphasized the crucial role of collaborative efforts from researchers who chose to share their experiences and grant termination details openly despite the discomfort surrounding political discussions.
Many of these researchers bravely stepped forward, leading to a surge in advocacy activities. They engaged with lawmakers, interest groups, and the media to voice their concerns regarding the ongoing grant terminations.
Delaney played a pivotal role in establishing the Grant Watch database, which serves as a tool for understanding the implications of grant cancellations and may assist in any potential litigation challenging the NIH’s decisions. With his background in both epidemiology and law, he felt suitably equipped to take on these issues.
However, Delaney’s situation became personal after facing the recent termination of his own grants, which supported his research on the relationship between climate change, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease. All his funding was abruptly halted, thrusting him into the midst of escalating tensions between the Trump administration and Harvard University.
In a conversation with STAT last week, Delaney shared the motivations behind Grant Watch and the ongoing battle between the government and the institution he represents. He reflected on how discussing his research, which intertwines health and climate issues, feels increasingly controversial under the current administration.
“When I say it’s health disparities and it’s climate change, that’s jargon,” he remarked. Essentially, he advocates for equal health opportunities for all, stressing that some communities experience health barriers due to their socio-economic conditions and living environments.
Delaney expressed belief in the importance of simplifying discussions about his work instead of relying on jargon that has become politicized. He aims to focus on the essence of his research: improving the quality of life for individuals affected by conditions like Alzheimer’s.
The concept for Grant Watch came to Delaney in early March when he noticed reports about numerous NIH grant terminations. Unsatisfied with the limited disclosures available, he recognized the necessity for a detailed record to understand the scale and specifics of these terminations, especially in case litigation was needed.
“This is surely illegal,” was his initial reaction as he contemplated the lack of documentation on grant cancellations. He understood that without a comprehensive factual record, potential legal actions would face significant hurdles, as courtroom disputes often center around detailed facts.
Delaney stated that the underlying goal of Grant Watch is to maintain a thorough catalog of grant terminations. As the NIH altered how it reported this information, creating obscurity around canceled grants, Delaney emphasized the importance of proper documentation. The government had previously shared a list of terminated grants but abruptly ceased this practice, only updating records by removing reinstated grants, leaving a significant gap in the public database.
The terminations struck a personal chord with Delaney last week as they unfolded at Harvard. He reported feeling a mix of surreal emotions while closely observing the governmental actions related to the NIH. Prior to the terminations, grant payments had already been frozen, limiting immediate impacts.
Despite the limited practical changes due to the freezing of payments, the wave of terminations created a sense of finality that deeply unsettled Delaney and his colleagues. He admitted to feeling “gutted” upon the news of widespread cancellations, acknowledging that the emotional toll was profound on the entire research community.
Yet, this moment of despair sparked a renewed focus on advocacy. The stark reality of terminations contrasted with the temporary nature of the freezing phase and rallied the scientific community to mobilize and stand up against the government’s actions.
Previously, there had been a certain complacency regarding the freeze, with many holding on to the hope of reinstatement. However, the realization that termination can imply an irreversible decision invigorated a fight among the affected scientists.
Collaborative efforts and information sharing among researchers became paramount in responding to the government’s actions. Delaney noted that collective experiences pushed many scientists to organize and advocate even more vigorously than before, highlighting how science is intertwined with advocacy for research and funding.
Ultimately, Delaney illustrates a profound shift in the morale of the affected community. In the face of adversity, scientists have become more united and determined to seek justice, reclaiming their narrative. With a strong foundation of shared information and records, there is hope that more substantial advocacy can take place regarding the NIH’s policies moving forward.
As the situation unfolds, both Delaney and his colleagues remain committed to their research, continuing their work despite the hurdles presented by funding cancellations. The emergence of Grant Watch stands as a testament to the power of community, collaboration, and resilience in navigating the precarious landscape of scientific research funding.
image source from：https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/05/27/business/harvard-scientist-grant-watch-nih-funding/
