Scientists and Administrators: Reasons for Departure in Protest
- We are National Institutes of Health scientists and administrators with more than 50 years of collective civil service.
- At the beginning of 2025, we anticipated changes with the new management, but expected that rigorous scientific inquiry would continue to be valued.
- Over the course of the year, as we witnessed the trump administration's reckless policies, we tried to protect the science we had always championed.
We are National Institutes of Health scientists and administrators with more than 50 years of collective civil service.
Or, more accurately, we where NIH scientists and administrators.
At the beginning of 2025, we anticipated changes with the new management, but expected that rigorous scientific inquiry would continue to be valued. After all, the country’s health research infrastructure, considered the most prestigious in the world, had always garnered broad bipartisan support.
Over the course of the year, as we witnessed the trump administration’s reckless policies, we tried to protect the science we had always championed. We spoke up when we could,and in June we joined hundreds of our colleagues in signing the Bethesda Declaration, an open letter to the NIH director detailing how several new policies were undermining scientific integrity and the institute’s mission.
but we can no longer lend our credibility to an association that has lost its integrity.In recent months, each of us independently reached the decision to resign in protest of the actions of an administration that treats science not as a process for building knowledge, but as a means to advance its political agenda. One of us resigned just Friday.
We have resigned as:
We protest the hypocrisy of an NIH leadership that claims to protect academic freedom while censoring grants and staff interaction. Rather of applying our skills and knowledge to science, we have been instructed to tell scientists competing for NIH funding to remove words like “equity,” “diversity,” “minority,” and “underserved,” irrespective of the scientific appropriateness of these terms or the significance of the projects. To this day, grants continue to be “realigned” with administration priorities, a clear form of ideological coercion.The damage to research and destabilizing effects on the scientific workforce will be long lasting.
We protest an NIH leadership that claims to champion early-career scientists and prioritize “solutions-oriented” health disparities research while selectively terminating and censoring these awards. We witnessed unilateral withdrawals of applications and terminations of active awards to early-career scientists simply because they had applied to funding announcements designed to broaden participation in the scientific workforce. The progress or promise of this science was never considered.
Similarly, funding announcements that solicited research to address health disparities were disappeared from the publi
Several personnel changes have occurred at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in late 2025 and early 2026, including resignations and a retirement. These changes involve key personnel at the National Cancer Institute, National Institute on Aging, and National Institute on Drug Abuse.
National Cancer Institute Personnel Change
Sylvia Chou, Ph.D., MPH, resigned from her position as program director at the National Cancer Institute on Friday, January 9, 2026.
The role of a program director at the National Cancer Institute involves overseeing and managing research programs related to cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Program directors are responsible for strategic planning, grant review, and fostering collaborations among researchers.
As of January 10,2026,the National Cancer Institute has not publicly announced a replacement for Dr. Chou.
National Institute on Aging Personnel Change
Paul Grothaus, Ph.D., retired on December 31, 2025, from his position as program officer at the National institute on Aging, earlier than initially planned.
Program officers at the National Institute on Aging are responsible for managing a portfolio of research grants focused on aging and age-related diseases. they provide scientific guidance to grantees and evaluate research proposals.
According to a National Institute on Aging news release, Dr. grothaus’s retirement was accelerated to allow him to pursue other opportunities.
National Institute on Drug Abuse Personnel Changes
Two resignations occurred at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in june and December of 2025. Alexa Romberg, Ph.D., resigned on December 8, 2025, from the position of deputy chief of the prevention Research Branch. Vani Pariyadath, Ph.D., resigned on June 14, 2025, from the position of chief of the Behavioral and Cognitive neuroscience Branch.
The Prevention Research Branch at NIDA focuses on developing and evaluating interventions to prevent drug use and addiction. The Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Branch investigates the brain mechanisms underlying drug abuse and addiction.
As of January 10, 2026, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has not publicly announced replacements for Dr. Romberg or Dr. Pariyadath. NIDA news releases are the official source for personnel updates.
Disclaimer: All authors mentioned were writing in their personal capacities.