darbysaxbe.bsky.social
Professor of Psychology @ University of Southern California: neuroendocrinology of close relationships, particularly plasticity across the transition to parenthood. Writing the book _Dad Brain_ for Flatiron Books, about the neurobiology of fatherhood.
107 posts
10,177 followers
1,235 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
My understanding is that the admin has not operationalized what they mean by DEI. But at the NIH and at many universities and workplaces, programs supporting the inclusion of veterans are administered by DEI offices and through DEI mechanisms
comment in response to
post
What about programs at universities that support veterans? And what about the NIH diversity programs that include veterans?
comment in response to
post
from rural or poor backgrounds are also going to lose out when "DEI" initiatives are erased. (J.D. Vance, who grew up in poverty in rural Ohio, was almost certainly a DEI admit to Yale Law School).
comment in response to
post
Veterans have also been disproportionately affected by firings at federal agencies. About a third of the federal workforce is made up of vets. NIH also includes individuals from rural backgrounds and low-income individuals in their diversity supplement criteria, which means that white people
comment in response to
post
Awesome. To be clear, I’m a fan of this. Just want to see more!
comment in response to
post
On the one hand, I'm glad to see this coalition. On the other, choosing Science & CHE = preaching to the choir- how does this reach persuadable folks? Why not use the funds to promote science broadly to non-scientists? Or, if the goal is just to rally the faithful, why no concrete action or ask?
comment in response to
post
You are my target audience for sure! 🧠
comment in response to
post
Thanks! It'll be out spring 2026!
comment in response to
post
It was given to a close colleague of mine by a Program Director at NSF. Commenters have noted that a similar word list exists in a report that Ted Cruz’s office put out about DEI in science last year
comment in response to
post
🧪 scholar.google.com/citations?hl...
comment in response to
post
I agree completely. Either review all the training grants together, or refuse to participate. Otherwise you are enabling a system that will explicitly punish underrepresented trainees. Study section members need to organize and push back.
comment in response to
post
OK excellent. That's great. I don't have bandwidth to learn a new platform but am really hoping some folks want to take up the charge and communicate the effects of the new admin to students!
comment in response to
post
Great! Do it!
comment in response to
post
Great idea! Please spread the word in game communities about the impact of the EOs on science & research - there are a lot of gamer nerds who might care!
comment in response to
post
OK fine, I personally don't use TikTok either-- but we need to figure out how to communicate with young people who are not getting their news from legacy media. Feel free to make constructive suggestions
comment in response to
post
I have no idea what any of this means but the point of my post is that anyone who is good at making videos or content should be communicating about the admin's EOs and their devastating effects on science. Go for it!
comment in response to
post
Yes I totally agree that undergrads should be reading actual news-- but given that all evidence suggests that they are not, I think we need to work harder to reach them through the platforms they are using. Attacks on science have implications for them too
comment in response to
post
Good to know! I don't use TikTok so am totally clueless, and am concerned by what I'm hearing about young people not getting info about the administration's current moves.
comment in response to
post
They don't -- which is my whole point. That's why the younger generation seems to be in the dark- they are getting their news from platforms that don't include much news or communication from scientists.
comment in response to
post
This is amazing @arghavansallesmd.medsky.social ! So glad you are on top of this. I have heard that TikTok downgrades political vids in their algorithm so we need to flood the zone.
comment in response to
post
www.washingtonpost.com/subscribe/si...
comment in response to
post
www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025...
comment in response to
post
I just shared it to Facebook! Thanks for the suggestion
comment in response to
post
This is a war on science & a dismantling of the NSF, which has spurred innovation and made the US competitive. If the new admin wants to defy Congressional appropriations, they must take it up with Congress.
comment in response to
post
during which time the US has enjoyed global leadership in the sciences. The new Exec Order which threatens to defund all projects that contain DEI language subverts this original guidance from Congress and renders any NSF proposal that followed submission guidelines as now unfundable.
comment in response to
post
Because of this legislation, NSF grants are required to include a brief statement of Broader Impacts: how will this work benefit society, including "Broadening Participation" in the scientific workforce. In short, "DEI" language has been baked into the framework of the NSF for almost 50 years,
comment in response to
post
the contribution & advancement of women and minorities in scientific, professional, and technical careers." The goal was to make the US more globally competitive by building the scientific workforce and including groups that had traditionally been excluded drom science training & careers.
comment in response to
post
More context here: www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025...
comment in response to
post
More information here www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025...
comment in response to
post
I got the screenshots and decision tree from a close, trusted colleague who received it directly from their Program Officer at NSF. I don’t want to name my colleague or the PO because the PO’s job is at risk, but my colleague is a real person who has current NSF funding and no reason to falsify this
comment in response to
post
The list was shared with me by a close colleague who got it directly from his Program Officer at NSF. Since the PO is risking their job to share this, we wanted to keep their name and my colleague’s name confidential, but they are definitely real and legit
comment in response to
post
It’s totally unconstitutional! Congress, not the exec branch, appropriates funds to NSF
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately, the Project Description is the full text of the grant- usually about 15 pages. The Project Summary is the overview
comment in response to
post
You mean terms like 'barrier' (which you could use in materials science or blood brain barrier research), 'bias' (which you use in statistics), systemic (like 'systemic inflammation'), women, or trauma? You don't think we could use better treatments for PTSD?
comment in response to
post
I'm open to suggestions! I wasn't sure what to say here besides just repeating the explanation from the post itself
comment in response to
post
Yes, thank you. I created these screenshots on my own computer from the keyword file I was sent
comment in response to
post
Yes!
comment in response to
post
I got this from a colleague who received it directly from an NSF Program Officer - this is the internal guidance they've been sent
comment in response to
post
If I study anxiety via threat-biased attention, the word "biased" gets me flagged. You can't design a study of humans without using at least one of the terms on the banned list, which means that biomedical, brain, social science research is now on ice in the USA
comment in response to
post
The word "systemic" is on the banned list, so if I study systemic inflammation & health, flagged. If I study political science, flagged. If I study trauma, flagged. Keep in mind that the largest mental health provider in the country is the Veteran's Administration, but we can't study trauma now?
comment in response to
post
These keywords could show up in the text of ANY grant involving human participants. If you say you're going to study men and women, you get flagged. If you say you're going to control for socioeconomic status - totally standard practice - you get flagged. Disability? Flagged.
comment in response to
post
Decision tree that has been sent to Program Officers at NSF
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post