The Devastating Cost of Politicizing Science: Brenna Henn's NIH Funding Cut

The Facts of the Case

Dr. Brenna Henn, a geneticist at the University of California, Davis, received an early career investigator grant from the National Institutes of Health in 2019 to study genetic diversity in African and African-descendant populations. Her research focused on addressing a critical gap in personalized medicine: while genetic medicine has advanced primarily using European genetic data, these tools fail when applied to other populations. Dr. Henn’s work aggregated approximately 3,600 genomes from populations of African descent across continental Africa and the Americas, including 80 samples from the Khoisan people of South Africa, who possess extraordinary genetic diversity.

Her research had already yielded significant insights, challenging the long-held perception that humans originated from a single location in Africa and instead suggesting a pan-African emergence of our species. This work represented a monumental step toward understanding human evolution and developing medical tools that work for all populations, not just those of European descent.

The Funding Crisis

In 2023, Dr. Henn submitted her grant renewal application, which followed the standard five-year renewal schedule. Initially, her program officer indicated that funding appeared secure. However, the grant status shifted to “pending” in December 2022 and remained in that state for nine months without explanation. When Dr. Henn finally requested an update in September 2023, she received a shocking response: her program officer stated that despite being unable to point to any specific policy, the grant would not be funded because it involved collaboration with South Africa.

The program officer’s subsequent advice—to reapply without mentioning South Africa—revealed the arbitrary nature of this decision. This left Dr. Henn’s research in complete limbo, with 200 terabytes of invaluable genetic data sitting unused on a server in Quebec, unable to be analyzed or made available to the global biomedical research community.

The Broader Context of Scientific Funding

This incident occurs within a troubling pattern of scientific funding cuts during the Trump administration that have targeted research with international collaborations. The “Lost Science” series, which features Dr. Henn’s account, documents multiple scientists who have lost jobs or funding after these cuts. These actions represent a systematic undermining of scientific progress that transcends political boundaries and threatens America’s leadership in research and innovation.

International scientific collaboration has historically been a cornerstone of American research excellence. From the Human Genome Project to climate research, collaborative international efforts have yielded breakthroughs that no single nation could achieve alone. The arbitrary restriction of collaborations with specific countries, particularly without clear policy justification, represents a dangerous politicization of science that ultimately harms American interests and global scientific progress.

The Human Cost of Arbitrary Decisions

Dr. Henn’s emotional devastation is palpable and justified. Her research wasn’t merely an academic exercise—it represented a crucial effort to address health disparities that affect millions of people of African descent worldwide. The development of personalized medicine tools that work effectively across all populations is not just a scientific goal but a moral imperative. By cutting this funding without clear justification, the administration has effectively told entire populations that their health concerns matter less.

The loss extends beyond Dr. Henn’s laboratory. The database of African genomes she planned to publish would have served thousands of biomedical researchers globally, accelerating discoveries in genetics, disease treatment, and human evolution. This decision represents a theft from the global scientific community and from future patients who might have benefited from these discoveries.

The Principle of Scientific Freedom

As defenders of democracy and liberty, we must recognize that scientific freedom is fundamental to both. The arbitrary exercise of power to suppress specific research directions without transparent policy justification represents exactly the kind of institutional erosion that threatens democratic norms. Science thrives on transparency, peer review, and merit-based evaluation—not on political considerations or arbitrary bureaucratic decisions.

The program officer’s admission that they “can’t point to a policy” justifying this decision is particularly alarming. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, government actions should be based on clearly articulated policies that undergo public scrutiny and debate. When decisions affecting scientific research are made opaquely and arbitrarily, they undermine public trust in both science and government.

The Ethical Imperative of Inclusive Research

Dr. Henn’s research addresses one of the most pressing ethical issues in modern medicine: the overwhelming bias toward European genetic data in personalized medicine. This bias means that medical advances primarily benefit people of European descent while potentially being less effective or even harmful for other populations. This isn’t just scientifically problematic—it’s fundamentally unjust.

The Khoisan people, whose genetic data Dr. Henn collected, represent an invaluable resource for understanding human genetic diversity. Their extraordinary genetic variation provides insights that could benefit all humanity. To abandon this research due to arbitrary political considerations represents a failure of both scientific ethics and basic human compassion.

The Economic and Strategic Implications

Beyond the ethical and scientific considerations, this decision makes poor economic and strategic sense. America’s leadership in biotechnology and medical research represents a significant economic advantage and source of soft power internationally. Arbitrarily cutting promising research projects undermines this leadership position and cedes ground to other nations that continue to invest in genetic research.

The data already collected represents a significant investment of taxpayer dollars. Allowing 200 terabytes of genetic information to sit unused on a server represents a tremendous waste of public resources and lost opportunity for medical advancement. This is precisely the kind of government inefficiency that critics often decry—yet here it’s being created by the government itself.

A Call for Restoration and Reform

This situation demands immediate corrective action. Dr. Henn’s funding should be restored, and clear, transparent policies regarding international collaborations should be established. The scientific community, policymakers, and the public must demand accountability for decisions that undermine scientific progress without justification.

We must also advocate for structural reforms that protect scientific funding from political interference. Science should be evaluated on its merits, not on arbitrary considerations unrelated to research quality or potential impact. Peer review, not political review, should determine what research receives funding.

The story of Dr. Brenna Henn’s defunded research serves as a cautionary tale about what happens when political considerations override evidence-based decision-making. It represents a loss not just for one scientist, but for countless patients who might have benefited from her work, for the scientific community that loses access to valuable data, and for America’s standing as a leader in scientific innovation.

As we move forward, we must recommit to the principles that have made American science great: openness, collaboration, merit-based evaluation, and a commitment to knowledge that benefits all humanity, not just select populations. The alternative—a world where scientific progress is hindered by arbitrary political decisions—is too devastating to contemplate.