To my colleagues in the field, thank you for your kind words and sympathy on Cheri's initial post. I appreciate you all.

If you're attending ICED, I'll see you there. Feel free to reach out if you want to have a chat or grab coffee.

It's upsetting to see projects like this get cancelled. It's upsetting to see the projects I've seen from other graduate students, professors, and other researchers get terminated that cover important topics. It's all upsetting.

Diversity supplements aren't just for ethnic minorities - they are for first-generation college student trainees, trainees with disabilities of any kind, and so much more. They are valuable in helping trainees learn the ins and outs of academia and contribute to science.

I want to believe that isn't the case. But it's hard to reach a conclusion that doesn't lead there.

Diversity supplements are important. I am lucky and blessed to be in a phenomenal lab with an excellent mentor who supports me. Not everyone has that opportunity.

The only key words that could be flagged are from the name of the funding opportunity itself. In the absence of any explicit connection to "DEI" (however this admin defines it), it makes sense that my mentor thinks this was cut because it was a grant to promote diversity in research training.

I know my career hasn't been very long in the field of psychology. I know many of my other colleagues are hurting too, with larger grants covering critical topics becoming terminated as well. It doesn't sting any less though.

Since my first experiences at the FIU Center for Children and Families, I have learned the promise and value of identifying individuals at-risk and intervening before these disorders can become entrenched and enduring. This is the work I've committed my career to.

This work is important. The Harvard STRIPED report estimates that 9% of Americans will have an eating disorder in their lifetime. In the state of Kentucky, children are increasingly using problematic eating behaviors to manage weight - and at younger and younger ages.

Is it because the sample focuses on women/girls? Are we suddenly considering evaluating risk of developing psychopathology as a DEI topic? Are "women/girls" or "eating disorders" the "amorphous equity objectives"? Frankly, if these topics are "DEI", then nothing is safe, and anything can be cut.

The sample would be taken from my mentor's current R01, which follows 400 mother-daughter dyads over the course of two years. I've been thinking deeply about what may have raised a red flag in the eyes of the current administration, but I'm stuck.

But this is a really puzzling point: this supplement was not explicitly researching a "DEI" topic. The terminated project aimed to develop machine learning models to assess for risk of developing problematic eating behaviors such as binge eating, purging, and restriction.

I want to preface this by saying that I think taking into account diversity and being inclusive in our research is of the utmost importance. It is critical, especially when things like eating disorders are impossible to disentangle from lived experience and cultural norms.

kentucky's lack of stickers for voting is extremely appalling and i think we should honestly make a bigger fuss about it. paper wristbands are simply insufficient.

you're so cringe bestie