NSF Implements Keyword Review Process, Raising Concerns Over Scientific Integrity

by mandymorgan February 4, 2025

In a move that has sparked widespread concern within the scientific community, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has begun screening active research projects for specific keywords that may indicate noncompliance with recent executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. According to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post, NSF staff are combing through thousands of research grants, searching for terms like “diversity,” “inclusion,” “systemic,” “trauma,” and even “women” to determine if projects violate new federal restrictions on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives.

Words you can’t say:

activism activists advocacy advocate advocates barrier barriers biased Biased toward biases Biases towards bipoc black and latinx community diversity community equity cultural differences cultural heritage culturally responsive culturally responsive disabilities disability discriminated discrimination discriminatory diverse backgrounds diverse backgrounds diverse communities diverse community diverse group diverse groups diversified diversify diversifying diversity and inclusion diversity equity enhance the diversity enhancing diversity equal opportunity equality equitable equity ethnicity excluded female females fostering inclusivity gender gender diversity genders hate speech excluded female females fostering inclusivity gender gender diversity genders hate speech hispanic minority historically implicit bias implicit biases inclusion inclusive inclusiveness inclusivity Increase diversity increase the diversity indigenous community inequalities inequality inequitable inequities institutional lgbt marginalize marginalized minorities minority multicultural multicultural polarization political prejudice privileges promoting diversity race and ethnicity racial racial diversity racial inequality racial justice racially racism sense of belonging sexual preferences social justice socio cultural socio economic sociocultural socioeconomic status stereotypes systemic trauma under appreciated under represented under served underrepresentation underrepresented underserved undervalued victim women women and underrepresented advocate advocates antiracist barrier barriers biased biases bipoc community diversity disabilities disability discrimination discriminatory

Scientists receiving NSF funding were recently advised to halt any activities that do not comply with the executive orders, which prohibit federally funded projects from promoting DEIA principles. Research that does not pass the keyword review may face modifications, partial defunding, or termination. An internal email further clarifies that while terms like “accessibility” may still be acceptable in the context of data management, broader socioeconomic discussions are subject to scrutiny.

A leaked decision tree and internal discussions suggest that the vetting process relies heavily on keyword filtering, a method experts say is both unprecedented and problematic. “Scientific inquiry should be guided by peer review and merit, not a keyword checklist,” said Morteza Dehghani, a professor of psychology and computer science at the University of Southern California. Critics argue that the review process lacks scientific rigor and risks defunding critical areas of research, particularly in sociology, public health, and human development.

On online forums, researchers have expressed deep concern about the chilling effect this policy may have on academia. “I study genetic diversity in ecology. Will my research be defunded too?” one scientist questioned on Reddit. Others pointed out that broad restrictions on terms like “inequality” or “barrier” could impact research unrelated to DEIA, such as physics, mathematics, and engineering.

NSF’s role has traditionally been to fund research based on intellectual merit and societal impact, often prioritizing the inclusion of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. Now, scientists warn that the new filtering process could undermine not only academic freedom but also the very foundation of rigorous, independent scientific inquiry. Whether legal challenges will reverse the directive remains to be seen, but researchers fear that, for now, political oversight is eclipsing scientific principles.

Join the Science Adventure:

The stakes for science have never been higher. In today’s turbulent political climate, staying informed is critical. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get the latest discoveries, major breakthroughs, and stories that matter most. Designed for teachers and science enthusiasts, this free resource enhances your teaching and understanding of science in real time. Subscribe today to ensure science stays at the forefront of public conversation! If you liked this blog, please share it—your referrals help This Week in Science reach more people when it’s needed most.