The National Institutes of Health terminated hundreds of research grants studying health problems in specific “diverse” subsets of Americans, namely LGBTQ+ people, racial and ethnic minorities, and women. Although many reports have covered these terminated grants, and many of these grants have been ordered to be reinstated, much of the discourse about the terminated grants does little to engage with the question Natalie Kitroeff raised in a recent episode of The New York Times’ The Daily podcast, “Why would American taxpayer dollars go to fund work that involves such a small group of people?”

Essentially, Kitroeff is asking whether some “diverse” subsets of Americans are “too niche” to study.

Even if we ignore moral and ethical reasons to conduct research with diverse subsets of Americans, Kitroeff’s question is misguided because it fails to consider two critical issues: (1) Not all problems affect the population equally. And (2) Questioning whether a single grant’s sample or program’s focus is too niche can only be answered when considering the samples of all grants or programs focused on the same problem.

I elaborate on these two points through my lens as a clinical research psychologist, studying what causes people to think about suicide and attempt suicide. My multiyear NIH grant to study suicide risk in rural lesbian, gay and bisexual people was terminated earlier this year.

Health problems do not equally affect all subsets of the population.

For example, scientists have known for decades that the prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors is three to nine times greater for LGBTQ+ people than for heterosexual people or cisgender people.

Given that some subgroups of the population are at high risk for certain problems, specifically sampling those high-risk subgroups enhances scientific efficiency. Researchers can enroll fewer participants, faster and for lower cost compared to sampling the entire population.

Whether the sampled subgroup comprises a large subset of the entire population is irrelevant. Given that LGBTQ+ people have such steep disparities in their prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, studying suicide in LGBTQ+ people is not niche. It’s efficient.

Whether taxpayer dollars are funding programs or studies with samples that are too niche can only be determined by inspecting the samples of all programs or grants studying that specific problem. NIH research is meant to benefit all Americans. This means that all Americans should be represented in NIH research.

Setting aside the fact that health problems do not equally affect all subgroups of the population, we might expect that – at a minimum – a subgroup’s representation in NIH research would be proportional to that subgroup’s population size.

This doesn’t usually happen though. For instance, in 2024 and the first three months of 2025, NIH funded 259 grants on suicide. Only 5% (n=13) were specifically sampling LGBTQ+ people, despite the fact that LGBTQ+ people comprise roughly 10% of the U.S. population. There is no basis to conclude that NIH is over-investing in research on niche subsets of the population when those subsets are being studied at a rate far below their population size.

Rather than questioning whether NIH-funded study samples are too niche, we should be questioning why certain subgroups of the population shoulder disproportionate disease burden. We should be questioning why these high-prevalence subgroups are consistently under-sampled.

Science should follow data. If data show clearly that a specific subgroup of the population experiences disproportionately high rates of an outcome yet are almost never studied, we should study that subgroup. Doing so is not niche. It’s also not political.

It increases scientific discovery and representativeness of findings. It moves us closer to solving devastating public health problems.

Lauren Forrest is a new Eugene resident, having recently moved here to start her dream job at the University of Oregon.