NIH terminates two Pitt studies on Alzheimer’s disease

In early August, the National Institutes of Health terminated two Pitt grants studying factors involved with the development of Alzheimer’s disease. 

With increased federal authority over scientific research funding, the federal government has terminated thousands of NIH grants over the past year. The NIH terminated two out of the 6,500 active grants at Pitt in the latest wave of grant terminations, citing concerns about scientific validity and the language used in grants.

As of August 2026, Pitt has lost over $40 million in funding since the Trump administration took office. University spokesperson Meredith Herndon said Pitt Research offers support to investigators who wish to appeal terminations and that Pitt will continue to work with elected officials and external stakeholders to maintain Pitt’s status as a “world-class research institution.”

Both studies focused on factors affecting cognitive aging and development of Alzheimer’s disease, a progressive brain disorder that affects memory, cognition and behavior. The termination of the grants means loss of the remaining funds, totaling around $7 million, and all further work on the projects must be ceased.

Ann Cohen, professor of psychiatry, led one of the terminated grants, a $9.6 million project studying how brain imaging and biomarkers — biological indications of disease — relate to social determinants of health, such as housing and stress, in cognitive aging and Alzheimer’s disease development. 

The termination occurred on Aug. 7 with a year and a half left on the five-year grant, which was part of a larger decade-long project studying cognitive decline over time. According to Cohen, the NIH terminated the grant because the diversity, equity and inclusion-related activities that the study was measuring were no longer aligned with federal priorities and were not considered scientifically valid methodologies.

Cohen said the study used gold-standard measures in all data collection, with well-established and validated methods that had also been reviewed by multiple expert panels prior to receiving funding.

“The rigor of the science in our study was not up for debate,” Cohen said. “While there are important conversations to be had about how we measure things related to questions of DEI in society, [I do take issue with] the argument that the methodologies used were not scientific.”

Researchers worked with participants from the Western Pennsylvania region for more than a decade, collecting blood and brain-imaging data. Cohen said her team and the participants involved in the study were trying to make a difference in those communities and felt disappointed that participants couldn’t receive test results back because data analysis ceased. 

“The individuals I talk to are really disappointed that their time, effort and actual blood are not being valued,” Cohen said. “It’s really disappointing to them to feel like their communities are being discounted in a way and their efforts may have been in vain.”

Cohen also said grant terminations can have a significant economic impact, leading to lab personnel being laid off or reassigned to other projects. 

“If there are positions available, staff are moved onto other grants. If not, their positions are eliminated,” Cohen said. “We are figuring out how to best support our team members through what is a very difficult time.”

The other grant, led by Tamara Dubowitz, professor of epidemiology, focused on how neighborhood resources, such as housing and access to healthcare, and health behaviors, such as diet and physical activity, affected cognitive aging and development of Alzheimer’s disease. 

The study followed a cohort of African-American subjects, a traditionally underrepresented population in research, from low-income communities in Western Pennsylvania. 

The National Institute on Aging, which funded the project for five years, terminated the $9.6 million grant during its final year. According to Dubowitz, who spoke in her personal capacity, data collection for the longitudinal study had been completed, and the remaining work consisted of data analysis and publishing their findings.

“We’ve invested all this money and time into doing everything, and now, we’re left unable to complete the final few miles of the marathon,” Dubowitz said. “That’s going to be a big loss for the NIH after investing in important research.”

Dubowitz said that according to a letter she received from the NIH, the grant was terminated because the research did not align with the federal administration’s research priorities and did not focus on scientifically valid measures. 

According to Dubowitz, the study’s focus on geographic resources and healthcare impacts aligned with NIH priorities concerning geographic distribution of resources. She also said study procedures had undergone intense scientific review to ensure their validity.

“We think the issue is that [the NIH] did not really look at our proposal and looked mainly at the public-facing language,” Dubowitz said. “Everything that we do and measure has been scientifically validated.”

According to Dubowitz, the NIH’s concerns may be due to grant language that includes terminology such as “structural racism.” She said future grant applications may need to reconsider terminology and discussion frameworks for such projects.

“[The NIH] is still very much interested in geographic resources, but they don’t seem to want people to say that this is linked to structural racism,” Dubowitz said. “Moving forward, we need to carefully demonstrate that what we’re studying is in fact a priority of the NIH.”

Dubowitz said she worries about the impacts of funding uncertainty and grant terminations on current and future generations of scientists.

“[I am] very hopeful that this next generation can have enough resilience to really start a lot of things from the ground up,” Dubowitz said.

Cohen emphasized that the problems scientific research addresses are not going away and said she worries about the fact that studies may be terminated with almost no warning over disagreements about scientific priorities. 

“I’m not sure how we can sustain important longitudinal studies,” Cohen said. “Scientists and science in the United States are still incredibly valuable, and it’s crucial that we can continue to work to support our communities.”