Pitt professors join class-action lawsuit against NIH, alleging it censored scientific research

Two Pitt professors recently joined a class-action lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept.16, alleges that the National Institutes of Health — the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research — unconstitutionally censored scientific research in relation to requiring a list of keywords to be excluded from studies. Pitt professors Andrea Rosso and Ann D. Cohen are among 13 named researchers in the ACLU-led suit, having both had research grants terminated by the NIH in late summer.

Cohen, who serves as co-director of Pitt’s Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, received a $9.6 million five-year grant to study how biological indications of disease relate to social determinants of health in cognitive aging and Alzheimer’s disease.  

Rosso, an associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology, was awarded a five-year grant in 2022 focused on how housing, access to healthcare and health behaviors affect cognitive aging and the early onset of Alzheimer’s disease. The study followed a cohort of African-American subjects from low-income communities in Western Pennsylvania. 

Both grants were terminated despite attempts to renegotiate with NIH priorities. 

In an interview, Cohen expressed that the legal process has taken a toll on her, but said she felt an obligation to join the lawsuit. Cohen said she believes legal action is the only way to stop NIH funding cuts.

“This is incredibly stressful. This has been, by far, the worst period of my professional life. But, you know, somebody has to do it,” Cohen said. “We can’t just sit back and watch something that so many people have worked so hard to build just crumble.”

When contacted, the NIH said it does not comment on ongoing litigation.

According to the lawsuit, Cohen received a “renegotiation” request from her NIH program officer who informed her “NIH funds may not be used to support any DEI related activities.” Despite removing language about poverty, segregation and mortgage redlining as measures of inequality from her project, the grant was terminated. 

Cohen said her attorneys, Pitt faculty and the scientific community as a whole have been very supportive throughout the legal process.

“Our community of research participants here in Pittsburgh have been incredibly supportive, and continually reminding me why this is so important,” Cohen said.

Pitt spokesperson Jared Stonesifer said in a statement the University recognizes and respects the right of individual faculty members acting as private citizens to exercise their independent rights and voice their personal perspectives.

“The University of Pittsburgh continues to collaborate closely with the Association of American Universities and higher education partners to oppose recent federal administrative actions affecting grant terminations,” Stonesifer said. 

Cohen also expressed concern for younger colleagues who aren’t protected by tenure.

“I’ve seen people leaving science because of these kinds of terminations,” Cohen said. “Appointment stream faculty at lots of medical schools — if they lose their funding, they lose their positions.”

Dolores Albarracin, a University of Pennsylvania professor who is also a named plaintiff, had three grants she said were subject to censorship from the NIH for terms such as “health disparities,” “black person,” “COVID-19” and “vaccination,” forcing her to remove these terms to receive funding. Albarracin believes considering these terms ideological negatively impacts the country as a whole.

“In my case, the terms are there simply because it depends on what population you study,” Albarracin said. “The country is affected if we do not eradicate HIV or curve cancer rates, and there are very good scientific reasons why those populations are selected for specific grants.”

Arghavan Salles, an associate professor at Stanford University who also joined the lawsuit, said the NIH cuts threaten important scientific studies that focus on topics without an obvious immediate payoff, such as lizard saliva.

“That’s the type of thing our current government would make a mockery of. Why are we spending federal funds to study the saliva of some reptile?” Salles said. “But in reality, that research resulted in identifying this molecule that became a revolutionary treatment that is helping millions of people around the world.”

Albarracin emphasized that science is based on evidence and believes the Trump Administration does not grasp some scientific concepts and is politicizing science.   

“To try to make decisions based on ideology or going against ideology — it’s just completely backwards and undermining of science,” Albarracin said.

Cohen said she has thought about the possibility of some form of retaliation for joining the lawsuit, though emphasized she feels protected. Rachel Meeropol, senior counsel at the ACLU, said the legal team will be trying to make sure the NIH does not retaliate against any of the individuals involved in the lawsuit. 

“[Retaliation] would, of course, be illegal, but they do lots of illegal things these days,” Meeropol said.

Of the plaintiffs interviewed, none have been involved in a lawsuit prior to this one. Albarracin said she has been asked to participate in other actions in the past, even related to the same issues. 

“I’ve never done it, but to me, freedom of speech and our ability to choose what we study, choose what we teach, is the main reason why I am in academia,” Albarracin said. “I absolutely feel this is something where we need to be proactive and try to see what recourses might be available to modify this unfortunate turn of events.” 

The plaintiffs filed a motion for stay and preliminary injunction on Sept. 24, asking the court to reinstate the terminated grants and stop what they believe to be the NIH’s censorship before a decision is made on the trial. Kenneth Parenno, counsel at Protect Democracy and part of the additional counsel on the lawsuit, explained the importance of the motion.

“Given the stakes that are at play here, given the immense harm that researchers are experiencing, that relief needs to happen soon,” Parenno said.

“[The preliminary injunction] is basically saying to the court: ‘This is an emergency. If you don’t act quickly, court individuals will be irreparably harmed,’” Meeropol added. “This is sort of the fastest way anything happens in our legal system.”

Meeropol said a hearing will likely take place in November, which is the first point at which a court ruling on the motion is expected.