ECR Asks: Dr. Brooke Long-Fox

By Oakleigh Wilson | July 28, 2025

‘ECR Asks’ is a new series of Q&A sessions where I speak with experienced SORTEE members to explore their journey in, and perspectives on, open science and transparent research. With the goal of supporting early career researchers like myself, this series aims to answer big questions and share practical insights on navigating the ever evolving landscape of open science and academia.

I would like to wholeheartedly thank Brooke for sharing her time, personal story, and thoughts with me. This conversation was a valuable insight into the behind-the-scenes intersection of research and politics, and I hope many ECRs may benefit from gaining some understanding of this challenge.

Q&A

headshot of Brooke Long-Fox

Science is ultimately a human endeavour and thus a part of, not apart from, the remainder of the socio-political climate. While open science conversations and initiatives often focus on technical accessibility and transparency, “openness” can also refer to social inclusion, for example identifying the barriers preventing access to science, as well as transparency in the incentive structures underlying funding allocation and decision-making. As members of and contributors to this scientific community, it is important for us to be aware and mindful of these forces.

In this month’s Q&A I spoke with Brooke Long-Fox, research scientist at South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and data curator for the MorphoBank repository at Phoenix Bioinformatics. Brooke’s research speciality is in conservation paleobiology, but her work has a strong focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI); particularly on gender equity in science. She has been involved in actioning supportive programs for faculty at her university, as well as currently serving as the co-chair for the SORTEE DEI Committee. Brooke joined me on the 25th of June to discuss the importance of DEI in Open Science and the recent mass-termination of DEI-related grants in the United States of America.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

US NSF ADVANCE Grants: Intention and Termination

ECR: You were part of a DEI-focused grant supporting gender equity for STEM faculty. Could you briefly describe this grant’s objectives and outcomes?

BLF: In the United States (US), the typical academic career progression moves from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, at which point one earns tenure, and then to full Professor. At our university, we noticed that while women faculty were being promoted from Assistant to Associate Professor, they were not advancing to full Professor. Many were either stagnating at the Associate level or leaving the university altogether. Our goal was to change that.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) had a grant program known as ADVANCE (now archived as of early 2025), to promote equity for STEM faculty in academia. Institutions often began with an ADVANCE ‘Catalyst’ grant, which supports data collection and institutional self-assessment to identify systemic gender inequities. This foundational work can lead to an ‘Adaptation’ grant, which funds the implementation of evidence-based strategies for systemic change. I worked on an Adaptation grant to develop and implement institutional programs and policies that would improve the retention and advancement of faculty. We implemented several successful initiatives, including peer mentoring and the ‘Advocates and Allies’ program, which trains faculty to proactively support gender equity. We also worked on revising promotion and tenure policies to address identified barriers. The ADVANCE Adaptation project saw a lot of engagement on our campus and drew attention and collaboration from other institutes as well.

ECR: Despite its success and the support it was receiving, the grant was later terminated. Could you describe what happened — that is, why it was terminated, and whether there was much warning?

For a long time, acknowledging and embracing diverse identities was viewed positively. People felt encouraged to self-identify by saying, “I belong to this group” or “I identify in this way”, and that was largely met with acceptance whatever that identity may be. More recently however, there’s been a noticeable shift in the US, especially around how DEI efforts are perceived and supported, both at the state and federal levels.

In our case, the first challenge surfaced several years ago at the state level, when lawmakers introduced restricted measures such as, preventing faculty from defining pronouns in their email signatures. Around that time, someone filed a complaint with the state government alleging that our ADVANCE project was discriminatory. From then on, we made sure that we advertised that our programs were open to everyone, regardless of identity, and we made sure that all of our work was to improve campus climate and faculty retention and promotion.  While our university supported our efforts, we remained committed to complying with laws and directives, while still striving to meet the goals of our ADVANCE project. Navigating these constraints required careful adjustments to how we framed and implemented our work, particularly as the broader political climate made open discussions of DEI increasingly sensitive.

Then, in early 2025, presidential executive orders rolled back support for DEI-related programs (orders: here and here). Initially, we were uncertain about how it would affect existing funding, but in April, NSF began terminating awards. We were warned informally that the first set of terminations was just the beginning and to expect more each Friday. I did my best to wrap things up quickly, knowing our termination was imminent. At other institutions, grant activities were halted immediately. It was a sudden and sweeping change with long-lasting implications. In total, NSF terminated over 1,600 awards, including all of the approximately 75 active ADVANCE grants. 

ECR: What effect has the cancellation of these grants had on greater DEI efforts?

BLF: The terminations have had a disproportionate impact because many principal investigators (PIs) and team leads were women and individuals from historically underserved communities. When funding tied to those roles disappears, it undercuts both their research momentum and their visibility on campus which are key factors in promotion, tenure, and leadership opportunities. Beyond the individual careers, the infrastructure those grants supported  (peer‑mentoring networks, ally‑training programs, policy audits, data dashboards) has stalled or disappeared altogether. Losing that coordinated support makes it harder for institutions to address equity gaps systematically and sends a discouraging signal to early‑career researchers who had begun to see pathways opening. The cancellations create a setback both for the people leading the work and for the broader DEI progress the grants were designed to sustain.

Closed Science

ECR: Universities have been under a lot of scrutiny and pressure to roll-back DEI programs, but how do you think this is affecting science more broadly? Is this also affecting other institutions, for example, non-profits and industry?

BLF: The impact extends far beyond academia. While the recent presidential Executive Orders don’t explicitly change existing laws, they have signaled heightened scrutiny of DEI-related efforts by recipients of federal funding, like nonprofits and private organizations. As a result, many federally funded nonprofits have been asked to certify compliance with these orders or with related anti-discrimination laws. The exact legal requirements are still being litigated, but for now, agencies can request these certifications. In some cases, the concern is that if any part of a federally funded organization engages in DEI activities (even if unrelated to the specific grant) that could jeopardize their funding. There’s also concern around whether this could affect an organization’s nonprofit status or tax exemption. For example, if SORTEE (which is a nonprofit registered in Oregon) received a US federal grant, we might be required to cease anything DEI related. Some biological societies have reacted to this by renaming their DEI committees, or by removing references to DEI on their websites, but for groups like SORTEE, inclusivity is a core value, not a label that can simply be removed. 

The implications go beyond DEI, extending to science, ecology, and evolution. Some of my current research involves PFAS remediation, in other words, studying how to remove “forever chemicals” from water systems. I’ve noticed that many of the reports and technical standards I previously cited have disappeared from their websites. In some cases, it appears that information related to contamination thresholds, regulatory guidelines, or data associated with climate change being removed or made inaccessible. This isn’t DEI-focused work; it’s basic environmental science and public health research.

ECR: Talk about non-transparent research. Retroactively retracting information is the opposite of open science!

BLF: Exactly. And it’s happening more broadly than people realize. It creates barriers to research and public accountability. In response, groups of scientists have been working to preserve offline or privately hosted copies of critical datasets and reports.

What Can ECRs Do?

ECR: Compared to the pressure exerted by the funding bodies and the institutes, the actual individual can often feel powerless. What do you think are some actions that the individual researcher, particularly the ECR, can do to make sure that we aren’t compromising on DEI?

BLF: Legally, there are limits to what individuals can do: for example, even if you’re the principal investigator on a grant that was terminated, you can’t appeal it yourself because the award belongs to the institution you were at when you were awarded and performed the work. Only the university administration can initiate an appeal or join litigation, and so far, few have chosen to do that.

But that doesn’t mean individuals are without influence. One of the most powerful things you can do is continue to embody the values behind DEI in your own work and research environment. Even if you can’t label it “DEI” specifically, it can be repackaged. We know that diversity makes for better research. You can still practice inclusive mentorship, design equitable hiring or collaboration practices, and foster supportive lab cultures. The community committed to equity and inclusion in science remains strong. Even if some of this work is on pause or operating under different names for now, it hasn’t gone away and it will return when the conditions allow. This work is driven by passion, not just policy.