NIH Diversity Programs Doubled Ph.D. Odds, Study Finds, Despite Funding Cuts
Two National Institutes of Health (NIH) programs aimed at increasing diversity in biomedical research significantly boosted the likelihood of undergraduate students earning a Ph.D., according to a 20-year study published in Science Advances. The research, which tracked 608 students in the Research Initiative for Scientific Enhancement (RISE) and Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC) programs, found that 20% of RISE participants and 34% of MARC participants earned a Ph.D., compared to 10% and 15% in non-participant groups, respectively.
What Were the RISE and MARC Programs?
Created under the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, RISE and MARC were designed to address disparities in biomedical research leadership. RISE provided institutional funding to create mentorship and educational opportunities, while MARC offered direct two-year research grants to undergraduates. Both programs targeted students from underrepresented backgrounds, aiming to prepare them for graduate studies.
Why Did the Trump Administration Terminate the Programs?
The Trump administration ended funding for RISE and MARC in 2020, along with the study tracking their long-term impact. While the NIH did not publicly explain the decision, the move occurred amid broader efforts to reduce federal support for diversity initiatives. Donna Ginther, an economist studying NIH funding disparities, called the termination “heartbreaking,” noting the programs’ proven effectiveness in fostering scientific careers.
How Did Researchers Measure Success?
The study matched participants with non-participants based on 11 factors, including GPA, major, and first-generation status, to isolate the programs’ effects. Despite challenges in comparing “twin” students who lacked similar opportunities, the research found that RISE and MARC participants were nearly twice as likely to earn a Ph.D. as their peers. However, the study did not analyze graduate school performance or publication rates due to halted funding.
What Happens Next for Biomedical Research?
The termination of RISE and MARC has raised concerns about the future of diversity in science. A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper released in March 2024 found a 22-point drop in early-career researchers’ intent to stay in U.S. academia, with 53% now considering alternatives. “What can be disrupted in a single year may take a generation to rebuild,” the study’s authors warned.
Why Does This Matter for Science Equity?
The findings underscore the role of targeted support in diversifying STEM fields. Anna Woodcock, a co-author of the study, emphasized that the programs “cherry-picked” high-potential students, yet their success highlights the value of structured mentorship. With funding cuts, experts worry about a potential exodus of underrepresented talent from academic research, exacerbating existing inequities in scientific leadership.