In early August, the National Institutes of Health terminated two Pitt grants studying factors involved with the development of Alzheimer\u2019s disease.\u00a0<\/p>\n
With increased<\/a> federal authority over scientific research funding, the federal government has terminated thousands of NIH grants<\/a> over the past year. The NIH<\/a> terminated two out of the 6,500 active grants at Pitt in the latest wave of grant terminations<\/a>, citing concerns about scientific validity and the language used in grants.<\/p>\n As of August 2026, Pitt has lost over $40 million<\/a> in funding since the Trump administration took office. University spokesperson Meredith Herndon said Pitt Research<\/a> 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\u2019s status as a \u201cworld-class research institution.\u201d<\/p>\n Both studies focused on factors affecting cognitive aging and development of Alzheimer\u2019s disease<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n Ann Cohen, professor of psychiatry, led one of the terminated grants<\/a>, a $9.6 million project studying how brain imaging and biomarkers \u2014 biological indications of disease \u2014 relate to social determinants of health, such as housing and stress, in cognitive aging and Alzheimer\u2019s disease development.\u00a0<\/p>\n 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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n Cohen said the study used gold-standard measures<\/a> in all data collection, with well-established and validated methods that had also been reviewed by multiple expert panels prior to receiving funding.<\/p>\n \u201cThe rigor of the science in our study was not up for debate,\u201d Cohen said. \u201cWhile 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019t receive test results back because data analysis ceased.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe individuals I talk to are really disappointed that their time, effort and actual blood are not being valued,\u201d Cohen said. \u201cIt\u2019s really disappointing to them to feel like their communities are being discounted in a way and their efforts may have been in vain.\u201d<\/p>\n Cohen also said grant terminations can have a significant economic impact, leading to lab personnel being laid off or reassigned to other projects.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf there are positions available, staff are moved onto other grants. If not, their positions are eliminated,\u201d Cohen said. \u201cWe are figuring out how to best support our team members through what is a very difficult time.\u201d<\/p>\n The other grant<\/a>, 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\u2019s disease.\u00a0<\/p>\n The study followed a cohort of African-American subjects, a traditionally underrepresented population in research<\/a>, from low-income communities in Western Pennsylvania.\u00a0<\/p>\n The National Institute on Aging<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve invested all this money and time into doing everything, and now, we\u2019re left unable to complete the final few miles of the marathon,\u201d Dubowitz said. \u201cThat\u2019s going to be a big loss for the NIH after investing in important research.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u2019s research priorities and did not focus on scientifically valid measures.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Dubowitz, the study\u2019s focus on geographic resources and healthcare impacts aligned with NIH priorities<\/a> concerning geographic distribution of resources. She also said study procedures had undergone intense scientific review to ensure their validity.<\/p>\n \u201cWe think the issue is that [the NIH] did not really look at our proposal and looked mainly at the public-facing language,\u201d Dubowitz said. \u201cEverything that we do and measure has been scientifically validated.\u201d<\/p>\n