Science Under Scrutiny: Senator Cruz's Keyword Hunt Misses the Mark

A Flawed Approach to Identifying "Woke" Research

Senator Ted Cruz recently claimed to have unearthed $2 billion in "woke" science grants, using a list of keywords like "women," "diversify," and "Hispanic culture" to identify projects promoting "radical political perspectives." But a closer look reveals a flawed methodology that snagged vital research projects completely unrelated to his purported concerns.

ProPublica, utilizing AI similar to ChatGPT, analyzed the 3,500 grants flagged by Cruz's team. The AI was tasked to identify projects aligning with "woke ideology" and DEI initiatives. Interestingly, the projects where the AI drew a blank provided the most compelling evidence of the keyword search's shortcomings.

Misinterpreted Meanings and Misguided Accusations

Cruz's dragnet swept up research on the evolution and spread of mint plants, simply because the grant application mentioned "diversify" in the context of biodiversity and highlighted the inclusion of a "female" scientist on the team. A bleeding control device was flagged for mentioning "victims" and "trauma," related to gunshot wounds. Biosensors designed to detect infectious diseases were tagged for the use of "POC," meaning "point of care," not "people of color." Even concussion diagnosis technology was caught for referencing "traumatic" brain injuries and patient "status."

"It's very frightening," said Charlotte Lindqvist, the University at Buffalo biology professor behind the mint plant research. "We are really trying very, very hard ... to move our world forward...and then you get flagged and blacklisted because there is a word like 'female' in your project.”

Methodological Flaws Undermine Credibility

The Senate committee's report, based on keyword searches of grant summaries, failed to account for the nuances of scientific language and overlooked the NSF's legal mandate to promote inclusion in science. Moreover, the committee didn't manually review all the flagged grants, relying on a crude, overly simplistic approach.

Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of international affairs at Princeton University, called the committee's methodology "obviously laughable." She expressed concern about the potential chilling effect on crucial research areas like racial inequality, mirroring past limitations placed on gun violence research.

Broader Impacts and Legal Mandates

The NSF evaluates grant proposals based on intellectual merit and “broader impacts,” which include societal benefit and inclusivity. Federal law mandates NSF support for research at historically Black colleges and universities and initiatives to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in science. This contradicts the Trump administration's executive orders to eliminate DEI initiatives.

“All of that is hard-wired into federal funding," Scheppele said. "If anyone was 'woke,' it was Congress.”

Ignoring Critical National Needs

The committee's narrow focus ignored projects addressing critical national needs, such as a study on maternal mortality rates among women of color and a project using drones to deliver defibrillators to underserved communities. Even outreach programs designed to increase diversity in STEM fields were criticized.

Melissa Finucane, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasized that diverse perspectives lead to "better science" and innovative problem-solving.

Consequences and Concerns

The committee's sweeping approach could stifle vast fields of research in social science, climate change, and medicine. Dominic Boyer, a Rice University anthropology professor whose flood risk reduction project was flagged, questioned the government's authority to "invalidate or discredit research that’s focusing on two-thirds of the population.”

The implications of Senator Cruz's keyword crusade extend beyond individual grants, threatening the future of scientific progress and inclusivity in the United States.