The Quackery of Columbia’s Racialized Medical Research

,

A recent article by Chris Rufo and Hannah Grossman of the Manhattan Institute offers an unflattering profile of Dr. Jennifer Manly, a neuropsychologist and Columbia professor. Manly is an agitator within the pro-Hamas campus movement. Her activism spills into her research, much of it based on “the so-called social determinants of health thesis, which posits that racism, sexism, and homophobia can cause brain disease in ‘Black and Latinx communities.’”

Rufo and Grossman note that critics have described the thesis as “pseudo-science.” Manly and her defenders would surely disagree, pointing to her impressive collection of scholarly publications and citations. However, peer review in medical journals is often just as much a screen for ideology as it is one for rigor. A careful examination of a study that Manly recently co-authored makes for a useful illustration of just how faulty this line of research is, and why it is incumbent upon the NIH to stop funding it. 

The study, “’Rest of the folks are tired and weary’: The impact of historical lynchings on biological and cognitive health for older adults racialized as Black,” was published in the journal, Social Science & Medicine, by ten authors, with Manly’s name appearing last.

From Social Science and Medicine, January 2025.

As the title suggests, the study examines the effect of lynchings on health outcomes. It claims to find that residing in states that historically had more lynchings of black victims causes black subjects to experience a greater increase in a measure of inflammation and a greater decline in cognitive function. The theory it offers to account for these findings is that experiencing lynchings activates a “stress response in early childhood” that contributes to adverse health outcomes later in life.

The article only supports this claim by using a convoluted and indefensible research design and by interpreting the results in implausible ways. Rather than devising a measure of lynching that might capture the likelihood that one was exposed to lynchings, they discard information and dichotomize the 37 states that had any lynchings of black people into having above median or below median number of lynchings. As they describe it, “we dichotomized the variable at the 50th percentile (median), where less than the median corresponded to states with 1 lynching and greater than the median corresponded to states that had 2 or more lynchings.”

As one of many examples of sloppiness, the median number of black victims of lynchings among the 37 states with at least one lynching is 16, not 1 or 2. And the median among all 44 states in the Tuskegee Institute’s data set is 5. Another egregious example of sloppiness is that the article mis-describes the Emancipation Proclamation as having been issued in 1864, when it was actually issued on January 1, 1863. And in another error, the text describes the main result inconsistently with how it is described in the tables. [i]

Regardless of how the researchers divided states into above and below median lynching categories, dichotomizing the data threw away information that prevented a more fine-grained examination of the health effects of lynchings. The effect of living in Mississippi, which had 539 black victims of lynchings between 1882 and1968, is treated the same as living in Virginia, with 83 lynchings, or Illinois, with 19. All would be above median, however they calculated it.

The researchers make no adjustment for the population of states, so that California, with 2 black victims of lynching, is treated the same as Montana, which also has 2. If the researchers are hoping to measure exposure to lynching, failing to differentiate between the size of states is a serious shortcoming.

But the most serious failure of the study is that the results of its fully specified model do not find that health outcomes are worse among black subjects in states classified as having a higher number of historic lynchings. As can be seen in Model 5 of Table 3, being in a state with above median historic lynchings is not significantly related to the CRP measure of inflammation among black subjects.

From “’Rest of the folks are tired and weary’: The impact of historical lynchings on biological and cognitive health for older adults racialized as Black.”

And in Model 5 of Table 4, residing in a state with an above median number of historic lynchings is not significantly related to the measure of cognitive performance among black subjects.

From “’Rest of the folks are tired and weary’: The impact of historical lynchings on biological and cognitive health for older adults racialized as Black.”

In model 5, the researchers add to their set of controls a variable for whether the state is in the Census definition of the South. So, what their research really shows is that black subjects who live in the South have worsening measures of inflammation and cognitive performance, not that historic lynchings contribute to adverse health outcomes. That is, within the South, being in a state that had above or below median numbers of lynchings is unrelated to health outcomes. And within the North, residing in a high or low lynching state also made no difference. The main factor driving their result is that health outcomes are worse in the South, even when controlling for a handful of other risk factors.

In the discussion section, the researchers attempt to dismiss these null results by noting that “the high overlap of participants living in U.S. South and a state with high lynching proportions may have induced some collinearity in our fully adjusted models.” Of course, there would be less collinearity if the researchers had not dichotomized the measure of lynchings. Regardless of their explanation, the fact remains that they have null results when controlling for region. This means that health outcomes for black subjects appear to vary based on the region in which they live, not the number of historic lynchings.

The claimed finding that exposure to lynchings of black victims by black subjects causes adverse health outcomes is further undermined by results that are inconsistent with their causal narrative. Specifically, they find that white subjects also have significantly lower cognitive performance in states with above median number of lynchings of black victims in all models except the one that controls for the South that also produces null results for black subjects.

The researchers attempt to explain this unexpected finding by arguing: “it is likely that structural racism against people racialized as Black co-occurred with structural racism-related factors, such as economic underdevelopment, which created a ‘universal harm’ (Brown and Homan, 2024) that also adversely impacted people racialized as White in the U.S. South.” By acknowledging that other factors, such as economic underdevelopment in the South may account for the adverse health outcomes of white subjects, it is unclear why this could also not be the explanation for the negative outcomes for black subjects.

Lastly, the claim that these subjects would have been exposed to lynchings strains credibility given how almost 99 percent of lynchings occurred before the average subject in the study could have been aware of them as a child. The average age for black subjects in the study was 67.68 when baseline data was collected in 2006 or 2008, meaning they were born around 1939. After 1942, when these subjects would have been three years-old, there were only 26 lynchings with black victims recorded nationwide in the Tuskegee Institute data set used by the researchers. That means that over 99 percent of the lynchings with black victims used for the study’s analysis occurred before the average subject could have been aware enough to have “experienced” it.

The only way that black subjects could have been affected is by living in the kind of state that had previously witnessed lynchings of black victims. But just as economic development is a different causal mechanism than the stress of having experienced lynchings, the conditions that facilitated lynchings in certain states before subjects could have been aware of those events are not the same thing as lynchings themselves.

All that this study demonstrates is that black and white subjects in the South have worse health outcomes than subjects in other regions. We have no way of knowing whether lynchings, economic conditions, or other factors in the past or present contributed to these negative health results. Claiming that the stress of experiencing lynchings caused these health problems is without any scientific basis. No credible scientists would use this evidence to make that claim and no credible scientific journal would publish and stand by these results. No credible health agency should be funding this pseudoscience, either.

[i] In another example of sloppiness, the article twice describes the effects as 18.5%: “Black that lived in states with higher proportions of lynchings (in midlife) experienced 18.5% (95% CI 3%, 36%) higher circulating CRP levels than participants racialized as Black that lived in states with lower proportions of lynchings.” But the coefficient in Table 3 is .17 and .185 does not appear anywhere in the tables of results.

Jay Greene, PhD is a senior fellow at Do No Harm.

Do No Harm Supports Rep. Crenshaw’s Bill to Stop Funding Hospitals Performing Child Sex Changes

RICHMOND, VA; March 12, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm announced support for the Children’s Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act that Representative Dan Crenshaw will introduce in Congress. This act will block funding for graduate medical education programs at children’s hospitals if the hospital provides sex change procedures for minors.

Since 1999, the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) program has funded graduate medical education programs to train resident physicians and dentists. The Children’s Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2025 extends the CHGME program through 2030. The legislation prevents CHGME funding from going to hospitals that administer child sex change interventions such as cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries.

“The American taxpayer should not fund hospitals that perform unscientific sex-change procedures on minors,” said Dr. Kurt Miceli, Medical Director at Do No Harm. “Representative Crenshaw’s bill is important to help protect our children by ensuring federally-funded graduate medical education programs do not engage in these harmful practices. Do No Harm supports this bill to help restore true quality of care, faith and trust in our profession.  We thank Representative Crenshaw for introducing it.”

“We’re standing for basic medical ethics and recognizing those who have been silenced and betrayed by a system that put ideology ahead of genuine care,” said Representative Dan Crenshaw. “Medicine should be grounded in truth and healing—not in false promises that cause lasting harm. I will always fight for detransitioners and push for real safeguards to ensure no one is harmed by dangerous gender transition procedures in the future.”

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 16,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Trump Executive Orders Bars Student Loan Forgiveness to Providers of Child Sex Changes

Last week, the Trump administration took another step toward disincentivizing the harmful practice of so-called “gender-affirming care.”

In an executive order, President Trump directed Department of Education officials to exclude “individuals employed by organizations whose activities have a substantial illegal purpose” from public service loan forgiveness.

Per the order, “substantial illegal purpose” includes actions such as “the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary States for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents.”

This means that individuals who work at organizations performing child sex changes are not eligible for student loan forgiveness.

Enabling student loan forgiveness for these individuals is a roundabout, indirect subsidy for the practice of so-called “gender-affirming care,” and a boon to the organizations performing these procedures.

Taxpayers should not be on the hook for harmful medical interventions that are not supported by scientific evidence.

This action follows on the heels of a January executive order halting taxpayer funding of these procedures through federal grants and health benefit programs, and directing federal agencies to take appropriate action to restrict access to child sex change interventions.

The January order, which is currently being challenged in the courts, also directed the Department of Justice to “prioritize investigations and take appropriate action to end deception of consumers” relating to the long-term effects of transition drugs and procedures.

University of Arizona Med School Quietly Rebrands Its DEI Office

The University of Arizona College of Medicine at Tucson has quietly removed large chunks of its website overtly pledging support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

At first glance, this would seem to be good news. But a closer review indicates this is more a rebrand than a significant shift in institutional posture. 

According to archives of the College of Medicine’s website, the school listed a “Diversity and Inclusion” office under its administrative offices up until February 14.

However, at some point between February 14 and today, the Diversity and Inclusion office was removed from the listed administrative offices. In its place is the Access, Community and Belonging office.

Additionally, at some point in 2024, the link to the Diversity and Inclusion office began to redirect to the Access, Community and Belonging office before the Diversity and Inclusion office was completely and officially removed.

The webpage for the older Diversity and Inclusion office appears nearly identical to the version of the webpage for the Access, Community and Belonging office that existed before February 14, and the offices are run by the same administrative official, Celina Valenzuela, MD.

In its effort to rebrand its DEI efforts, the College of Medicine scrubbed several DEI resource pages from its website; they are no longer accessible via the Access, Community and Belonging office webpage.

These include the school’s diversity statement, which pledged to advance diversity through “educating, training, and employing diverse faculty, staff, and student body” and “encouraging and supporting culturally responsive scholarly activities that acknowledge and respect systems of healing that emerge from different traditions.”

Additionally, the school scrubbed its DEI “Recruitment” section that advertised its DEI scholarship – open to “underrepresented” students.

The DEI “Retention” page is also removed, as is the “Obtaining DEI Credits” page that recommends DEI trainings on topics including microaggressions and implicit bias. The section further recommends faculty and staff take the Implicit Association Test to better understand their implicit biases. (Of course, the Implicit Association Test is not predictive of real-world behavior or prejudice.)

However, some vestiges of overt DEI and discriminatory practices remain.

Take the Spurring Success for Women in Medicine & Science (SSWIMS) fellowship, which makes it clear who the school has in mind for the award: “Women, groups underrepresented in medicine and science, and candidates who are diverse in other ways are encouraged to apply.”

Ultimately, it appears this rebrand is an attempt to publicly downplay the school’s more explicit endorsements of DEI ideology while still retaining its substance. The University of Arizona should instead ditch its DEI programs altogether.

APA Accused of Failing to Address Rampant Antisemitism ‘Within Its Ranks’

According to an open letter spearheaded by Psychologists Against Antisemitism, the American Psychological Association (APA) is failing to address “virulent antisemitism within its ranks.”

The letter cites numerous examples of antisemitic statements and messages in internal listservs; these include statements like “Kudos to Hamas” and calls for “Intifada, Intifada,” as well as calls for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel.

The letter then accuses the APA of failing to properly address this rampant and pervasive antisemitism within its organization, noting its “relative silence” on the issue of antisemitism.

It’s simple: there is no place for antisemitism in the psychology profession. Mental health professionals should all agree that the APA must protect its Jewish members and the Jewish community at large from this disgusting rhetoric.

Help hold the APA accountable and add your name to the letter through the form linked here.

Additionally, the letter cites statements made by Dr. Lara Sheehi, president of the APA Society of Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychology (Division 39), that the letter argued equated support of Israel’s right to exist with “psychosis.”

The letter calls on the APA to address and investigate this antisemitic rhetoric and ensure that material harmful to Jews is not part of any continuing education offerings.

As of late February, the letter already had over 3,500 signatures.

Sign on to the letter through the form linked here, and help hold the APA accountable.

Do No Harm Unveils Medical School DEI ‘Watchlist’

Too often, medical schools use diversity, equity, and inclusion or “DEI” as a cover for racially discriminatory practices.

Scholarships and awards are restricted to certain racial groups on the grounds of “health equity,” and privileging certain racial groups in the admissions process is justified on the grounds of “diversity.”

That’s why Do No Harm is unveiling our “watchlist” of over 70 medical schools that still maintain offices dedicated to DEI and related concepts. Many of these schools, such as The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine or the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, have already been the subject of Do No Harm’s work exposing their discriminatory practices.

From our experience, DEI is often just a proxy for overt or covert racial discrimination, and the institutions championing inclusivity and diversity are often the same institutions handicapping deserving students based on their race.

The list follows on the heels of executive orders by President Trump cracking down on discriminatory practices at institutions of higher education, such as race-based admissions and exclusionary scholarship programs.

Additionally, on February 14, the Department of Education gave institutions of higher education receiving federal funds a deadline of February 28 to cease all racially discriminatory policies, programs, and practices. The Department correctly noted that many of these offensive policies are justified on the grounds of DEI.

That means that medical schools have already been put on notice.

Medical schools have a choice. They can either end their regressive, discriminatory policies and practices, or continue violating students’ constitutional rights in pursuit of a radical political agenda.

If they choose the latter, they risk losing access to federal funding.

Have Ohio’s Universities Gotten the Message on DEI?

,

Ohio lawmakers are currently considering legislation to effectively ban diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in institutions of higher education like medical schools.

The bill, SB 1, predictably drew condemnation from pro-DEI activists, and one might expect the universities themselves to adopt similar positions. 

But according to a recent report by Signal Ohio, the Inter-University Council of Ohio (IUC), a lobbying group representing Ohio’s 14 public universities, elected to remain neutral on the bill.

What’s more, not a single university president has publicly opposed the bill, according to Signal Ohio.

Needless to say, this is an enormous departure from the usual positions taken by universities  – it’s also a remarkable shift from the IUC’s previous position on DEI.

In 2023, the IUC had issued a full-throated defense of DEI in a statement expressing concerns over a previous bill (that never became law) targeting DEI in higher education.

“One of the most potentially important parts of the bill is the prohibition on mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training,” the IUC wrote. “Data shows, DEI efforts help create an academic community that generates a higher enrollment rate, matriculation rate, and eventual success rate. DEI is for students with disabilities, veterans with PTSD, minority students, and students who are New Americans who may need extra help due to language or cultural barriers. DEI helps more students achieve the American Dream of success via a college education.”

Contrast that statement with the IUC’s silence on SB 1, and it’s clear a major internal change has taken place in the minds of universities and their representatives.

Credit where credit is due: the IUC and Ohio’s public universities seem to be reading the writing on the wall. DEI is increasingly unpopular and defending it is no longer politically viable.

CMS Puts Child Sex Change Providers on Notice

On March 5, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) sent out an alert to healthcare providers notifying them of their “obligation” to protect children from harmful sex change interventions.

The notice references the wealth of research demonstrating how there is no strong evidence to support the efficacy of so-called “gender-affirming care.” This includes the Cass Review, the exhaustive study of gender transition services in the United Kingdom that found “remarkably weak” evidence to support child sex change interventions.

Moreover, the notice cites Do No Harm’s research project, “Major Pediatric Gender Studies, Major Flaws,” which identified several of the most often-cited studies ostensibly supporting child sex change procedures and exposed their methodological flaws.

“CMS reminds hospitals that it is of utmost importance that all providers follow the highest standards of care and adhere closely to the foundational principles of medicine, especially as it comes to America’s children,” the notice reads. “This CMS alert to providers on the dangerous chemical and surgical mutilation of children, including interventions that cause sterilization, is informed by a growing body of evidence and protective policies across the world.”“

“CMS may begin taking steps to appropriately update its policies to protect children from chemical and surgical mutilation,” the notice continues.

The notice follows on the heels of President Trump’s executive order cracking down on the child sex change interventions and restricting taxpayer funding of the procedures. That order is currently being contested in the courts.

“The medical experts and advocates working with Do No Harm to protect our country’s children welcome and applaud the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) alert to providers emphasizing their obligation to protect American children from irreversible harm from the child transgender industry,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm.

“Science and highest standards should guide medical care, especially as it comes to America’s children,” said Dr. Goldfarb.

Do No Harm Moves to Intervene in Case Over Trump Orders on DEI and Gender

,

RICHMOND, VA; March 5, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a motion to intervene in a case challenging President Trump’s executive orders on DEI and gender identity brought by the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago.

Do No Harm is asking the court to become a defendant in the case, giving Do No Harm the right to file briefs, take discovery, and present arguments to help defend the orders alongside the U.S. Department of Justice. 

“We at Do No Harm have unique experience in challenging illegal DEI policies and the expertise to understand the medical issues surrounding gender identity,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “We are asking the court for the opportunity to bring our experience to bear, and explain why these orders targeting harmful and discriminatory practices are necessary.”

The plaintiffs in this case – activist groups who receive federal funding and support harmful DEI programs based on race and gender identity – are challenging the following executive orders:

This lawsuit directly threatens Do No Harm’s mission and its ability to protect its members – medical professionals, patients, and students – from discrimination and other harms. The court should permit us to intervene.

To read the motion to intervene, click here.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 16,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Do No Harm Sues Medical Society for Discriminatory Scholarship

,

RICHMOND, VA; March 5, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a lawsuit against the American Chemical Society (ACS) for operating a discriminatory scholarship.

The ACS Scholars Program awards students interested in the chemical sciences up to $5,000 per academic year to help pay for college tuition and fees. However, the scholarship program is only open to black, Hispanic, and indigenous students. White and Asian applicants are not eligible.

Due to these discriminatory restrictions, the Scholars Program violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally, because ACS receives tens of millions of dollars from federal contracts, it is ignoring President Trump’s executive order demanding that federal contractors end discriminatory programs.

“The American Chemical Society is blatantly discriminating against aspiring chemists simply based on their skin color,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “It is shameful for a congressionally chartered nonprofit that accepts tax-deductible charitable contributions to push radical identity politics in medicine at any level of education. ACS should open its Scholars Program to students of all races, and we are prepared to bring the full force of our resources to bear on ACS and any organization that flouts the law to divide and exclude students from opportunities on the basis of race.”

Do No Harm is filing this lawsuit on behalf of a high school senior who meets all qualifications for the program except the racial requirement and is therefore ineligible.

To read the full complaint, click here.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 16,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Do No Harm’s January Littlejohn Honored at Joint Address to Congress

,

If you watched President Trump’s joint address to Congress last night, you probably noticed a familiar face: Do No Harm Parent Advocate January Littlejohn!

The president thanked January for her work as a “courageous advocate” protecting children from the harms of gender ideology, and January even received a standing ovation.

“A few years ago, January Littlejohn and her husband discovered that their daughter’s school had secretly socially transitioned their 13-year-old little girl; teachers and administrators conspired to deceive January and her husband while encouraging her daughter to use a new name and pronouns,” Trump said. “They/them pronoun[s] actually.”

“All without telling January, [who is] here tonight and is now a courageous advocate against this form of child abuse. January, thank you.”

“Stories like this are why shortly after taking office, I signed an executive order banning public schools from indoctrinating our children with transgender ideology,” Trump continued, adding that he “signed an order to cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages in the sexual mutilation of our youth.”

“Now I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body,” Trump concluded.

Figure 1. January Littlejohn receiving a standing ovation from members of Congress, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Vice President J.D. Vance.

We’re so thrilled for January to receive this honor, and hope you join us in congratulating her for everything she’s done for parents across the nation.

“I was incredibly grateful and humbled by the invitation to attend the Joint Address to Congress from First Lady Melania Trump,” January said. “I was there to represent not only my family and the nightmare we endured, but for all families who have been harmed by the lies of gender identity ideology.”

“I am incredibly grateful to President Trump for the strong stance he has taken to protect parental rights and vulnerable children like my daughter,” January added. “President Trump said ‘our message to every child in America is you are perfect, exactly the way God made you’ and I couldn’t agree more.”

Castle Connolly Doubles Down on Racial Concordance

Doctor-ranking company Castle Connolly is back at it again with the latest iteration of its report promoting discredited racial theories.

Recently, Castle Connolly announced the 2025 edition of its “Top Black Doctors” report which highlights the organization’s picks for the best black doctors in 2025; these 338 doctors were evaluated by the Castle Connolly research team.

“This distinction is designed to honor top clinicians and enable patients to find Castle Connolly Top Doctors who have shared backgrounds and experiences,” the report states.

Explicit in this message is the endorsement of the discredited notion that health outcomes improve when patients and physicians are of the same racial background, a dynamic called “racial concordance.” The existing research demonstrates that racial concordance is not associated with any improvements in health outcomes.

Castle Connolly is hardly the only medical organization to engage in these types of practices. Other purportedly reputable organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Association of American Medical Colleges have endorsed similar views in recent years.

Additionally, Castle Connolly has published previous “Top Black Doctors” reports, with Do No Harm covering these publications in 2024 and 2023.

Beyond the organization’s obsession with racially-focused medicine, the quote featured on their rankings page highlights a more deeply-rooted problem.

The quote by Dr. Jacqueline Jones states, “My inclusion on the Castle Connolly Top Black Doctors list has increased the diversity in my practice. Since the list came out, I have seen an increase in the number of Black professionals who are seeking out physicians of color to provide their care.”

This is a bizarre and disturbing sentiment, and sets a troubling precedent. We as a society should not be encouraging people to choose their physicians based on race. 

That is the road toward segregation and division, and is antithetical to principles of inclusion.

I’m a Surgeon, and I’ve Never Been More Alarmed About My Profession

Today’s surgical residency graduates are increasingly unprepared for professional practice.

I have been a surgeon for 38 years. Three of those I spent as a general surgeon in the Navy, the remainder as a plastic surgeon in private practice. I have never been more alarmed about the state of my profession than I am today.

Read more on City Journal.

The National Cancer Institute’s DEI Obsession

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the federal government’s chief agency tasked with supporting cancer research.

That makes it all the more disturbing that the NCI has actively promoted racially discriminatory policies and practices through its own initiatives as well as its grantmaking activities.

Do No Harm conducted a deep dive into the NCI’s DEI obsession; several of these findings were covered in a report by Fox News that drew upon Do No Harm’s research.

Since the Trump administration took over from the Biden administration, many of these resources and statements have since been scrubbed from the NCI’s website, and given President Trump’s executive order targeting DEI in the federal government, it’s unclear the current status of the NCI’s DEI efforts. 

However, Do No Harm has archived the most egregious examples of the NCI’s infatuation with DEI and racial discrimination. Taken as a whole, these statements and initiatives represent a damning indictment of the prior administration’s ideological commitment to racial discrimination, and should be prime targets for an administration concerned with restoring merit and fairness to the medical field.

Institutional Commitments

First and foremost, the NCI published a statement expressly committing itself to “Attract and recruit talented scientists from diverse backgrounds to increase the diversity of the cancer research workforce.”

To define “diverse” individuals, the statement referred to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition of “underrepresented” (which has since been removed as well) that included the following racial groups: “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”

In other words, the NCI’s hiring policy explicitly prioritizes certain racial groups over others. 

As if an agency-wide policy of racial discrimination wasn’t enough, the NCI also operates an “Equity Inclusion Program” overseen by the “NCI Equity Council” (NEC) and five working groups.

“Equity and inclusion are not issues we address in isolation—they cut across everything NCI does and are integral to how the institute operates,” the archived web page reads.

The Equity Inclusion Program “strives to increase the diversity of the cancer research workforce, build a more inclusive and equitable NCI community, address cancer disparities, and advance health equity,” according to the program’s archived “About” page.

To accomplish this, the NCI appears to be tracking racial demographic data among its workforce, as well as engaging in several DEI-related initiatives.

Then there’s the Diversity Career Development Program (DCDP), which aims to “provide postdoctoral fellows from diverse backgrounds with leadership skills and tools to achieve their full potential at NCI and advance in their research careers.” The program strongly encourages  candidates from “underrepresented” backgrounds to apply, again referring to the NIH’s racially discriminatory definition of “underrepresented.”

The NCI also maintains race-focused groups, such as the “Black Cancer Researchers” group that aims to “enhance the environment and experiences of Black cancer scientists at the National Cancer Institute.”

Meanwhile, these DEI sentiments have been echoed by NCI personnel.

For instance, during a 2021 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, former NCI Director Dr. Norman Sharpless presented a panel on advancing equity in the field of cancer research.

“NCI believes increasing diversity in all areas of cancer research will lead to faster progress that will redefine what cancer means for everyone,” the description of the panel reads. 

This is saying the quiet part out loud: the NCI’s position is that prioritizing race over merit will improve the quality of cancer research. It’s unclear how this argument is supported, whether by facts or basic logic.

Divisional DEI

Practically every NCI division has its own laundry list of statements and initiatives in support of DEI and/or racial discrimination.

This demonstrates the sheer scope of the NCI’s DEI commitments and the extent to which the ideology has pervaded the agency at even the most granular levels.

Take the Center for Cancer Research; an archived version of the center’s DEI statement includes a commitment to “be intentional in our efforts to recruit and retain faculty underrepresented in biomedical research.” This is in addition to state

The Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD) makes a similar commitment, stating it has implemented “procedures for broadly advertising DCTD job openings and promoting targeted outreach/engagement with candidates from underrepresented groups” and is “collaborating with the NCI Equity and Inclusion Program” to “provide NCI staff with the resources and training required to ensure DEIA in every aspect of the hiring process.”

Given the NCI’s endorsement of racially discriminatory policies, we don’t need to speculate what “DEIA in every aspect of the hiring process” looks like.

In addition to promoting race-conscious hiring practices, the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG) pledged to engage in a division-wide cultural revolution in which it would be “Weaving DEIA into the Fabric of DCEG.”

This includes an “Inclusivity Minute” email project featuring discussions on a variety of DEI-related topics including structural racism and “microaggressions,” as well as the DCEG’s anti-racism working group.

The Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (CRCHD) is another leader in NCI’s DEI efforts, explicitly focusing its mission on racial disparities and “health equity.”

The center funds several initiatives and grants to increase the “diversity” of the cancer research workforce through what appear to be discriminatory hiring and recruiting practices, targeting individuals as young as middle school and high school age.

This discriminatory DEI ideology is evident in the blue chip cancer research programs sponsored by the NCI. For instance, the CRCHD’s “Cancer Moonshot Scholars” program is part of the Biden administration’s ambitious Cancer Moonshot program to expedite cancer research.

“The program seeks to diversify the NCI R01 portfolio by enhancing the number of applications submitted by Early Stage Investigators from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups identified as underrepresented (NOT-OD-20-031) in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences research workforce,” the Cancer Moonshot Scholars description reads, again referencing the NIH definition of “underrepresented.”

The Early Investigator Advancement Program also references that same definition in its bid to increase diversity among cancer researchers.

Leadership Complicity

To illustrate the extent of DEI’s grasp on the NCI even further, many of the NCI’s leaders also serve in a dual capacity as advocates of DEI.

There are too many to count, but to provide a small sample, Do No Harm scoured the public statements of the NCI.

For example, in 2024, the CRCHD announced the Cancer Equity Leaders (CEL), a “diverse team of premier cancer research leaders who will reimagine and transform the future of cancer health equity.” The statement said the initiative “will be co-chaired by NCI CRCHD Director Sanya A. Springfield, Ph.D.,” and the statement mentions that numerous NCI officials will also have roles in the team.

As another example, Jackie Lavigne, Ph.D., M.P.H., the DCEG training director, has received numerous awards for her work on diversity in previous administrations.

“With the hiring of Jackie Lavigne, Ph.D., M.P.H., to direct the Office of Education (OE) in 2007, DCEG expanded beyond gender to focus on recruiting and retaining individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in the biomedical and scientific workforce,” a 2022 DCEG statement reads. “While we have borrowed some of the approaches to gender parity, a series of events in 2020 galvanized the community and stimulated a series of steps to re-orient the journey. In addition, the work of Professor Ibram X. Kendi has inspired many across the Division to take up the mantle of becoming anti-racist.” 

An endorsement of noted pro-racism advocate Ibram X. Kendi is hardly a reassuring sign.

It’s clear that the NCI has become firmly committed to a radical and discriminatory ideology.

For the good of the country’s health, the current administration should do everything in its power to restore the NCI to its true mission, rather than allowing it to remain a vehicle for a toxic and regressive political agenda.

National Science Foundation Bankrolls Discriminatory Program for ‘Underrepresented’ Scholars

The National Science Foundation (NSF), the federal agency responsible for funding a large chunk of scientific research, states that its mission is “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense.”

Yet one of its most prolific grantmaking programs, the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), seems more concerned with the racial makeup of the individuals achieving these goals than the goals themselves. 

LSAMP is a grantmaking program that invests in colleges and universities to further education in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields.

The description of LSAMP on the NSF website makes clear that the goal of the program is explicitly discriminatory.

“LSAMP is an alliance-based program, whereby a group of institutions of higher education (IHEs) work together to diversify the nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by increasing the number of STEM baccalaureate and graduate degrees awarded to persons from LSAMP populations,” the description reads.

 “LSAMP populations are defined as persons from groups underrepresented in the STEM enterprise:  Blacks and African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders,” the description continues.

According to the NSF website, LSAMP has funded over 140 projects at universities across the country.

However, many of these awards are to institutions located in states that have passed laws restricting DEI and racially discriminatory practices.

For instance, the Bridges Across Texas – Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (BAT-LSAMP) is a partnership of Texas Tech University, The University of North Texas at Dallas, Dallas College – El Centro Campus, South Plains College, and Texas Southmost College.

The program description states that the project “aims to increase the number of STEM degrees awarded to historically underrepresented groups, including African Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Pacific Islanders.”

It’s worth noting that on January 1, 2024, the Texas law preventing public universities from “promoting differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity” went into effect. 

The NSF has funded $25 million in active awards through LSAMP in Texas alone, along with nearly $20 million in each of Georgia and Florida, according to the NSF’s website.

There is no legitimate scientific reason for the NSF to target specific racial groups in its grantmaking strategy.

Prioritizing race over talent and competence invariably leads to worse scientific outcomes and is clearly unethical. To continue doing so is not only immoral but contrary to the NSF’s larger mission to pursue the achievement of human knowledge.

UMass Chan Medical School Imposes Identity Politics on Faculty, Polices Language

, ,

At the UMass Chan Medical School, “inclusive” seems to have a concerning meaning. 

One of the school’s programs, the “Inclusive Identity Project” sponsored by the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, enables faculty members to select their own pronouns in the school’s human resource system and mark their sex as “X.”

“Recognizing that sex is not a binary, nearly half of U.S. states, including Massachusetts, allow individuals to have an X on their birth certificates and/or driver’s licenses to indicate that they identify as a sex other than female or male,” the school’s Inclusive Identity web page states. “Enabling UMass employees to have an X as their sex respects the diversity of our society and is in keeping with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts offering X as a legal sex on driver’s licenses.”

The program also encourages faculty members to use individuals’ preferred pronouns and “gender identity” nomenclature.

Figure 1. Screenshot from a webinar on the Inclusive Identity Project.

“The best thing to do if you realize you just used the wrong pronoun for someone in a conversation with them is to say something right away, such as ‘Sorry, I meant they,’” the FAQ reads. “Fix it, but do not call special attention to the error. If you realize your mistake after the fact, apologize to the person at your next opportunity. Please do not go on and on to the misgendered person about how bad you feel that you made that mistake or how hard it is for you to get it right.”

Other initiatives promoted by the school diversity office include racial and sex-oriented “affinity groups.”

For instance, the “People of Color Affinity Group” aims to “create a safe space where those who have experienced structural oppression, marginalization and/or other microaggressions can share their experiences with others who have a shared sense of identity.”

As another example, the “AALANA” affinity group “represents African American, Latinx, Asian and Native Americans” and “seeks to support and advance faculty of color through collaboration, celebration, and knowledge.”

Do No Harm is no stranger to UMass’s concerning vision of inclusivity; in 2023, Do No Harm filed a complaint with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights over the school’s Pipeline for underrepresented Students in Medicine (PRISM) program, which included discriminatory eligibility criteria.

The previous eligibility criteria stated that applicants “must be a member of historically underrepresented groups in medicine e.g., Blacks, Mexican Americans, Native American (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and of Hispanic origin.”

The current eligibility criteria for the PRISM program state that “Individuals historically underrepresented in STEM, health science and medicine are strongly encouraged to apply,” and that “[p]riority will be given to students that identify from one of the following underrepresented groups in STEM, health science and medicine: Black/African Americans, Hispanic or Latinx, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders.”

Then there’s the UMass Chan Medical School Summer Learning Opportunity (SLO) program.

[The p]rimary goal of this program is to increase representation of men of color, particularly Black men[,]into medicine. All students are welcome to apply[.] Priority will be given to URiM,” the program description states. 

“The AAMC defines URiM students as ‘those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population … which includes African Americans, Hispanics/Latinx, American Indians, Alaska Natives, native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders,’” the description continues.

To be clear, these individuals are not underrepresented as a percentage of qualified applicants, only as a percentage of individuals in the population. Qualified individuals who are members of these racial groups are readily accepted to medical school and numbers out of proportion to their academic performance as undergraduates and on MCAT exams

It’s clear that for UMass Medical School, “inclusivity” is often a proxy for radical ideology and identity politics that treat people less as individuals and more as members of specific groups.

Needless to say, this is not conducive to effective medical education. Individuals should be viewed through the lens of their achievement and merit, and not their group identity.

Do No Harm Files Amicus Briefs in Support of President Trump’s Gender Executive Order

Today, Do No Harm filed two amicus briefs in support of President Trump’s executive order aiming to cut off taxpayer funding of child sex change interventions.

Earlier this month, LGBT interest group PFLAG National and several Democrat-led states sued the Trump administration over the executive order, arguing it discriminated against “transgender” children in violation of federal civil rights law.

Now, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits are seeking preliminary injunctions against President Trump’s executive order.

Do No Harm’s briefs support the Trump administration’s position opposing the preliminary injunction and lay out the scientific evidence – or lack thereof – behind so-called “gender-affirming care.” They further explain why the court must protect children by denying the request for a preliminary injunction.

The briefs explain how systematic reviews are the highest form of medical evidence, and that every major systematic review has found no reliable evidence to justify the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a treatment for gender dysphoria in minors.

These include reviews performed in multiple countries like Sweden and Finland, and by researchers at York University that were in turn incorporated into the Cass Review, the 388-page report commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) of England examining the efficacy of medical treatments for gender dysphoria. The Cass Review found “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and hormone treatments for gender distressed children.

Next, the briefs dismantle the underpinnings of the plaintiffs’ arguments, citing evidence to disprove the claim that denying minors access to sex change interventions increases the rate of suicides. The briefs also cite Do No Harm’s Stop the Harm Database to disprove the notion that minors aren’t regularly receiving sex change surgeries.

Finally, the briefs use statements made by the plaintiffs’ own experts to illustrate how little is known about gender dysphoria and its so-called “treatments.”

In October, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to uphold Tennessee’s law restricting minors’ access to sex change interventions, and refuted similar arguments made by the plaintiffs in that case.

The fact of the matter is this: there is no reliable evidence to justify medical interventions as treatments for gender-distressed children.

Courts must do the right thing for our country’s children and allow common-sense protections to go into effect.

NIH Funds $1.3 Million Study on ‘Teen Pregnancy Prevention’ for ‘Trans-Identified’ Kids

How far has society gone when we’re raising adolescents who don’t recognize the nature of their own biology? 

That’s the crux of a $1.3 million National Institutes of Health (NIH) study for Transcendent Health with more than two years remaining. It aims to “[adapt] an LGB+ inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys – youth who are assigned female at birth (AFAB) and identify as transgender (e.g., as non-binary or as trans boys).”

Is this the type of ideological study tax dollars should be funding?

The study claims that these 14- to 18-year-old biologic girls are “effectively excluded from sexual health programs because gender-diverse youth do not experience the cisgender, heteronormative teen sexual education messaging available to them as salient or applicable.” The study suggests that because these children view themselves as boys, they are naïve to the fact pregnancy is possible. 

No wonder President Trump needed to make clear in one of his first executive orders the definitions of male and female. We’re failing our children when they don’t understand the fundamentals of their own biology and are ignoring the realities of their bodies.

And, we’re failing them further when society speaks to sex being “assigned” at birth as if it were simply changeable. Instead, as is the case with this study, further confusion is imparted by providing teenage respondents with thirteen different choices to describe their gender identity. So much for biology.

Building on the particulars of a youth-focused gender ideology, the grant has two primary aims. The first looks through the lens of “health equity” to adapt Girl2Girl, a “text messaging-based sexual health program designed for cisgender sexual minority girls,” for gender inclusivity. The grant uses focus groups and advisory teams to adjust the program content for “AFAB trans-identified youth.”

The second aim then offers a national randomized control trial testing the resulting adaptation in these teenage girls, with use of birth control and pregnancy as examples of measured outcomes. 

Studies like this are anchored in a gender ideology that entraps our youth into believing an irreality, which will only do them harm spiritually, emotionally, and physically. Building an even more “comprehensive sexual health program,” as the study suggests, will do little to address the true health care needs of these adolescents. Our focus should be on biological truths and providing authentic compassion, love, and care for these children and their families. NIH funding should be put to better use. Let’s save taxpayer dollars for studies that will truly make a difference.