I recall one of my undergraduate professors preaching that science is better than other fields because we operate outside of politics, sociocultural categorizations and human bias. After all, our goal is to find the ultimate truths of the universe and how the world operates through rigorous experiments and objective observations. However, the more I learn about how science is performed, the more I have realized that his assertions were utterly untrue. This belief unravels as soon as we ask ourselves a few critical questions. How do we determine which questions are worth pursuing? How do our past experiences influence the way we integrate previous findings to form new hypotheses? How does our perspective about the world shape the way we interpret our data? How must we form our projects in a way that convinces funding agencies that our research is worth investing in?
Scientists — as much as politicians or artists — are human. Therefore, it is unavoidable that our perspectives, experiences and biases shape our work. While it is true that research findings help us discover the facts, the pursuit of science is influenced by our imperfect humanity, perspectives and yes, even our politics. That means who influences science and who is doing the science matters.
June is Pride Month, a time to celebrate and bring awareness to the LGBTQIA+ community! For me, a genderqueer and asexual neuroscientist, Pride is a time of joy, community and healing. Although some may think the queer lens and the scientist’s lens are unrelated, as I have advanced in my scientific career, I have noticed parallels with my evolving embodiment of my queer identity. Just as my music training has shaped how I think about auditory processing and my dance background influences my understanding of motor control, my queer identity also adds to my scientific perspective.
Science has historically been viewed through a cisgender, heteronormative lens — but as a queer scientist, I am able to peek beyond the curtains of those assumptions. Hearing experiences from intersex individuals in the LGBTQIA+ community makes me question how scientists define, or rather fail to define, how they determine biological sex in studies. Historically, and even for many studies now, the impact of sex on biology has not even been considered as a variable in biomedical research despite an increasing body of literature showing that sex alters disease outcomes in myriad ways1–6. Hearing trans community members discussing subtle cognitive changes after hormone replacement therapy helped inspired my interest in neuroendocrinology. In this way, our sociocultural perspective greatly impacts the quality of scientific research and the range of people who are able to benefit from our work. Queer researchers contribute a unique perspective that adds an additional layer of rigor and innovation to the scientific community.
Systemic issues prevent certain groups from getting the educational foundation required for a career in science. Especially in a field like scientific research, where the failures tend to outnumber the wins, lack of representation and peers from a similar background can exacerbate imposter syndrome and feelings of unwelcomeness. Because as humans, we have a tendency to pursue the scientific questions that we relate to the most, lack of scientists from a certain group often means lack of research about that group. This is especially apparent when funding agencies do not incentivize, or even disincentivize, research on certain topics.
This systemic exclusion of certain groups from science and research priorities can lead to devastating consequences. Homophobic administrations are not likely to fund research on public health issues that primarily affect the queer community. For example, due to the association of HIV/AIDS with the queer community, then-President Reagan failed to divert the proper resources to study it, and refused to even publicly mention AIDS until 1985 — four years after the start of the AIDS epidemic7,8. By then, around 12,000 Americans had already died from AIDS8,9. In this way, rejecting queer perspectives from science can be deadly.
Today, we are seeing a similar push to withhold funding for public health and biomedical research regarding the queer community. In 2025, at least 323 grants relating to sexual and gender minority health were canceled10,11. Although some had their funding reinstated after winning a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services, months of legal battle led to a loss in expert staff and infrastructure that researchers are struggling to recover from10,12. For new grants, executive orders have forbidden federal funding of projects recognizing gender diversity10,11 and terms like “LGBT,” “trans,” “gay,” “gender” and “assigned female/male at birth” have been reported to be blacklisted13,14. The consequences of recent funding policies have not only reduced the total number of NIH grants awarded by more than half in the first quarter of 2026 compared to the first quarter of 2025, but NIH grants relating to marginalized populations have been disproportionally affected15,16. These policies are yet another example of how even science cannot escape from politics.
How we actually do science is inherently biased by our individual humanness. And we must accept this in order to ensure we are doing science in a way that can benefit everyone. When different kinds of people are able to join the conversation, they bring their alternative perspectives — and along with that comes different ideas, new hypotheses and innovation. So this year for Pride, consider how your assumptions should be questioned to improve the rigor of your science, the quality of care received by your patients or even in the connections you make with your neighbors!
References
(1) Arky, Beth; Wendy Nash; Epstein, Susan F. Why Many Autistic Girls Are Overlooked. Child Mind Institute. https://childmind.org/article/autistic-girls-overlooked-undiagnosed-autism/ (accessed 2026-03-10).
(2) Beam, C. R.; Kaneshiro, C.; Jang, J. Y.; Reynolds, C. A.; Pedersen, N. L.; Gatz, M. Differences Between Women and Men in Incidence Rates of Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2018, 64 (4), 1077–1083. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-180141.
(3) Burrows, C. A.; Sung, S.; Zheng, S.; Young, G. S.; Charman, T.; Klaiman, C.; Klin, A.; Marrus, N.; Ozonoff, S.; Piven, J.; Robins, D. L.; Schmidt, R. J.; Schwichtenberg, A. J.; Webb, S. J.; Zwaigenbaum, L.; Carver, L. J.; Chawarska, K.; Curtin, S.; Jeste, S. S.; Iverson, J. M.; Landa, R. J.; Messinger, D. S.; Roberts, J. E.; Stone, W. L.; Tager-Flusberg, H.; Esler, A. N.; Miller, M.; Bishop, S. L.; Elison, J. T. Sex-Related Measurement Bias in Autism Spectrum Disorder Symptoms in the Baby Siblings Research Consortium. JAMA Netw Open 2025, 8 (8), e2525887. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.25887.
(4) DeFilippis, E. M.; Van Spall, H. G. C. Is It Time for Sex-Specific Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease? Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2021, 78 (2), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.012.
(5) Huebschmann, A.; Regensteiner, J. Women are at a higher risk of dying from heart disease − in part because doctors don’t take major sex and gender differences into account. The Conversation. https://doi.org/10.64628/AAI.3kpecmhta.
(6) Gender Differences in Heart Disease: Why Women’s Symptoms and Treatment Responses Differ. Oklahoma Heart Hospital. https://www.okheart.com/news/gender-differences-in-heart-disease-why-womens-symptoms-and-treatment-responses-differ/ (accessed 2026-03-10).
(7) Timeline of The HIV and AIDS Epidemic. HIV.gov. https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline (accessed 2026-05-20).
(8) Bennington-Castro, J. How AIDS Remained an Unspoken—But Deadly—Epidemic for Years. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/articles/aids-epidemic-ronald-reagan (accessed 2026-05-27).
(9) Snapshots of an Epidemic: An HIV/AIDS Timeline. amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research. https://www.amfar.org/about-hiv-aids/snapshots-of-an-epidemic-hiv-aids/ (accessed 2026-05-27).
(10) Trudy Ring. Court stops termination of LGBTQ+ health research grants | Advocate.com. https://www.advocate.com/news/court-blocks-termination-nih-grants (accessed 2026-06-05).
(11) Lindsey Dawson; Jennifer Kates. Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions Impacting LGBTQ+ Health. KFF. https://www.kff.org/lgbtq/overview-of-president-trumps-executive-actions-impacting-lgbtq-health/ (accessed 2026-06-05).
(12) Lexi Lonas Cochran. Researchers drop projects, consider switching fields after a year of Trump funding cuts and layoffs. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5692876-trump-funding-cuts-defense-education-medical-research/ (accessed 2026-06-05).
(13) ltolin. Federal Government’s Growing Banned Words List Is Chilling Act of Censorship. PEN America. https://pen.org/banned-words-list/ (accessed 2026-05-27).
(14) Lee, B. Y. These 197 Terms May Trigger Reviews Of Your NIH, NSF Grant Proposals. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2025/03/15/these-197-terms-may-trigger-reviews-of-your-nih-nsf-grant-proposals/ (accessed 2026-05-27).
(15) Johnson, C. Y.; Sidhom, L.; Svrluga, S. Where U.S. Science Has Been Hit Hardest after Trump’s First Year. The Washington Post. April 19, 2026. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2026/04/19/science-research-funding-cuts-trump/ (accessed 2026-06-05).
(16) RePORT ⟩ RePORTER. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/sxANUP7zcUKQZBjAdQySaw/projects/charts (accessed 2026-06-05).
Related Content
Want to read more from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine? Subscribe to the Biomedical Odyssey blog and receive new posts directly in your inbox.