When “DEI” research is cut, what happens to community health?

How many times have we said this without thinking about it?

这句话我们不假思索地说了多少次了？

For most of us, it's usually an easy walk or a short drive to get the cheese we forgot.

对于我们大多数人来说，通常只需轻松步行或一小段车程即可获得我们忘记的奶酪。

In reality, though, 13% of the U.S. population (about 39 million people) live in “food deserts,” which means living more than a mile from a grocery store in urban areas and more than 10 miles in rural areas.

但实际上，13% 的美国人口（约 3900 万人）生活在“食物沙漠”中，这意味着城市地区距离杂货店超过 1 英里，农村地区距离杂货店超过 10 英里。

This was the case for people in Pittsburgh’s Hill District , where a quick run to buy food wasn’t an option.

对于匹兹堡山区的人们来说就是这种情况，在那里快速跑去购买食物并不是一种选择。

In the 1930s , federal maps marked the Hill as "hazardous" for lending, a practice known as redlining that steered investment away from Black neighborhoods.

20 世纪 30 年代，联邦地图将这座山标记为贷款“危险”区域，这种做法被称为“红线”，旨在引导投资远离黑人社区。

Decades of disinvestment followed, and residents went about 30 years without a nearby grocery store.

随后数十年的投资撤资，居民们大约有 30 年没有看到附近的杂货店。

This made it hard to keep healthy eating habits and contributed to chronic disease.

这使得人们很难保持健康的饮食习惯，并导致慢性疾病。

When a grocery store finally opened in the area in 2013, researchers saw the opportunity and launched the PHRESH study, which initially compared the health of participants from the Hill district to those in the Homewood district.

2013 年，当一家杂货店终于在该地区开业时，研究人员看到了这个机会，并启动了 PHRESH 研究，该研究最初比较了 Hill 区和 Homewood 区参与者的健康状况。

Over time, the study expanded to other factors such as brain health and Alzheimer's risk.

随着时间的推移，该研究扩展到其他因素，例如大脑健康和阿尔茨海默病风险。

Residents like Roderick Blair overcame initial hesitation to share their health data, trusting it would benefit their neighborhood.

像罗德里克·布莱尔这样的居民克服了最初的犹豫，分享了他们的健康数据，相信这会给他们的社区带来好处。

Then, in August 2026 , the NIH abruptly canceled the study’s grant, citing that it was “ subjective ” and fell outside their scientific scope—an effect of the administration’s interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).

然后，在 2026 年 8 月，NIH 突然取消了该研究的资助，理由是该研究具有“主观性”并且超出了其科学范围——这是政府对多样性、公平性和包容性 (DEI) 解释的影响。

Research like PHRESH can help determine what changes in a neighborhood actually improve health, so cutting it has left that question unanswered.

像 PHRESH 这样的研究可以帮助确定社区中的哪些变化实际上可以改善健康，因此削减它使这个问题没有答案。

Other canceled studies have examined health issues like maternal health, preterm birth rates, or sickle cell disease.

其他被取消的研究还研究了孕产妇健康、早产率或镰状细胞病等健康问题。

Courts have reversed some of these grant cancellations, but not all of them .

法院撤销了其中一些补助金取消，但不是全部。

If we really want America to be healthier, research into why some communities get sicker than others is absolutely critical.

如果我们真的希望美国变得更健康，那么研究为什么一些社区比其他社区病情更严重绝对是至关重要的。

The law that created the federal minority health research institute passed with bipartisan support in 2000 .

2000 年，创建联邦少数民族健康研究所的法律在两党支持下获得通过。

But these days, as evidenced by grant cancellations, the political shift in attitudes toward DEI means we often lose access to the health information we need to help all communities thrive.

但如今，正如拨款取消所证明的那样，对 DEI 态度的政治转变意味着我们经常无法获得帮助所有社区繁荣所需的健康信息。

The letters “DEI” evoke very different reactions depending on who you are in the U.S. DEI programs can address gender, disability, age, and other factors, but the fiercest debate centers on race.

字母“DEI”会引起截然不同的反应，具体取决于您在美国的身份。DEI 计划可以解决性别、残疾、年龄和其他因素，但最激烈的争论集中在种族上。

For some people, hearing DEI brings to mind policies that may have cost them a job or a college seat because they are white.

对于一些人来说，听到 DEI 会让他们想起一些政策，这些政策可能会因为他们是白人而导致他们失去工作或失去大学席位。

Others see DEI as a matter of justice: a way to expand representation and opportunity for groups that have been historically marginalized.

另一些人则将 DEI 视为正义问题：为历史上被边缘化的群体扩大代表性和机会的一种方式。

Both perspectives are rooted in lived experience, and both center on the same question: whether hiring and admissions practices are fair.

这两种观点都植根于生活经验，并且都集中在同一个问题上：招聘和招生实践是否公平。

Hiring and admission practices, though related, are not the same as health equity.

招聘和录取做法虽然相关，但与健康公平并不相同。

Health equity is “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people.”

健康公平是“所有人获得最高健康水平”。

It’s the recognition that some groups of people consistently experience worse health outcomes than others.

人们认识到，某些人群的健康状况始终比其他人群差。

For instance, black mothers die from pregnancy-related complications at three times the rate of white mothers, and rural Americans are more likely to die from issues such as heart disease and cancer.

例如，黑人母亲死于妊娠相关并发症的比率是白人母亲的三倍，而美国农村地区更有可能死于心脏病和癌症等问题。

Equity is also often conflated with “equality,” which leads to misunderstanding of how to actually best support communities.

公平也常常与“平等”混为一谈，这会导致人们对如何真正最好地支持社区产生误解。

Equality ignores the fact that we aren’t all starting life with the same resources or circumstances, whereas equity is about helping people get what they specifically need based on their situation so they have the chance to achieve the same outcome as anyone else.

平等忽视了这样一个事实，即我们并不是都以相同的资源或环境开始生活，而公平是帮助人们根据自己的情况获得他们特别需要的东西，这样他们就有机会实现与其他人相同的结果。

For example, if every household in Pittsburgh got a $30 grocery gift card, that would be equal.

例如，如果匹兹堡的每个家庭都获得一张 30 美元的杂货礼品卡，那就是平等的。

But during the decades the Hill District went without a grocery store, that card wouldn’t have helped much.

但在山区没有杂货店的几十年里，这张卡并没有多大帮助。

Equity means making sure everyone can actually access a store in the first place.

公平意味着首先确保每个人都能真正进入商店。

DEI policies can overlap with health equity in many ways.

DEI 政策可以在很多方面与健康公平重叠。

For example, they may help expand access to quality education and stable, well-paying jobs, which in turn can provide health insurance, safer housing, and improved finances—all of which can reduce health disparities.

例如，它们可能有助于扩大获得优质教育和稳定、高薪工作的机会，从而提供健康保险、更安全的住房和改善财务状况——所有这些都可以减少健康差距。

But to make that happen, we first need data to identify disparities in communities and to develop solutions that effectively address them.

但要实现这一目标，我们首先需要数据来识别社区中的差异，并制定有效解决这些问题的解决方案。

You can’t fix what you don’t see : Data show which communities are most affected by health factors such as infection, heart disease, and cancer.

你无法解决你看不到的问题：数据显示哪些社区受感染、心脏病和癌症等健康因素影响最大。

If we don’t know what is happening and where, then we can’t develop interventions to help.

如果我们不知道正在发生什么、在哪里发生，那么我们就无法制定干预措施来提供帮助。

Poor health costs everyone : Chronic disease is expensive—both to the individual person and to the overall economy.

健康状况不佳会让每个人付出代价：慢性疾病对个人和整体经济来说都是昂贵的。

Understanding what groups of people are most at risk allows us to develop interventions that can save everyone money.

了解哪些人群面临的风险最大，使我们能够制定可以为每个人节省资金的干预措施。

Disparities exist for many communities : Health equity includes disparities that exist due to a whole host of factors, such as family background, race and ethnicity, rural vs. suburban residence, gender and sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, and lower income.

许多社区都存在差异：健康公平包括由于一系列因素而存在的差异，例如家庭背景、种族和民族、农村与郊区居住、性别和性取向、退伍军人身份、残疾和较低收入。

This means many Americans can benefit from research into differences in health outcomes and how to improve them.

这意味着许多美国人可以从对健康结果差异以及如何改善这些差异的研究中受益。

Trust is easy to lose : Some participants in the PHRESH study were initially vocal about their concerns about participating.

信任很容易失去：PHRESH 研究的一些参与者最初表达了他们对参与的担忧。

But that trust was earned because the researchers kept their promises and centered their work on the community.

但这种信任是因为研究人员信守诺言并将他们的工作以社区为中心而赢得的。

When projects are canceled mid-cycle, researchers have no choice but to leave behind communities they had promised to help.

当项目在周期中取消时，研究人员别无选择，只能留下他们承诺帮助的社区。

This hurts trust in the long run.

从长远来看，这会损害信任。

It’s also a very inefficient use of resources, and it will take significant time and effort to redo the work when the government realizes this work is important again.

这也是对资源的一种非常低效的利用，当政府再次意识到这项工作的重要性时，将需要花费大量的时间和精力来重做这项工作。

This is hard because the words “equity” and “DEI” are currently very politically charged.

这很难，因为“公平”和“DEI”这两个词目前充满政治色彩。

So whether you’re a public health professional, teacher, or friend, how we talk about this topic matters .

因此，无论您是公共卫生专业人士、老师还是朋友，我们如何谈论这个话题都很重要。

The right framing can help people who might otherwise be skeptical see why health equity research is important and deserves funding.

正确的框架可以帮助那些可能持怀疑态度的人了解为什么健康公平研究很重要并且值得资助。

Choose your words strategically: Who are you trying to reach with your message?

有策略地选择你的措辞：你想向谁传达你的信息？

Are they likely to be resistant to terms like “diversity” and “equity”?

他们是否可能抵制“多元化”和“公平”等术语？

If so, find alternative words to use to still get the message across.

如果是这样，请找到替代的词语来仍然能够传达信息。

It is frustrating to be in that position, but the goal of improving health is too important not to try to make inroads.

处于这样的境地令人沮丧，但改善健康的目标太重要了，不能不努力取得进展。

Sometimes simply reframing can help the message reach those who need to hear it.

有时，简单地重新组织就可以帮助将信息传达给那些需要听到的人。

Focus on the problem: The terms “health equity” and “DEI” are abstract.

聚焦问题：“健康公平”和“DEI”这两个术语很抽象。

Make it more specific.

使其更具体。

For example, discuss differences in maternal death or ways to improve health outcomes in rural communities.

例如，讨论孕产妇死亡的差异或改善农村社区健康结果的方法。

These still have equity at their core but will likely be better understood by those you’re talking with.

这些仍然以公平为核心，但可能会被与你交谈的人更好地理解。

Focus on systems : Disparities exist, but if they are communicated poorly, people can mistakenly think the issue is the individual’s fault.

关注系统：差异是存在的，但如果沟通不畅，人们可能会错误地认为问题是个人的错。

Disparities are largely driven by failures of the system—such as lack of access to health care and a long legacy of racism.

差异很大程度上是由系统故障造成的，例如缺乏医疗保健和长期存在的种族主义。

When discussing the disparities, frame them around these systemic issues to ensure blame isn’t placed on the individuals impacted.

在讨论差异时，请围绕这些系统性问题进行讨论，以确保不会将责任归咎于受影响的个人。

Tell stories : Personalize these policies by using stories from those impacted that connect to the data you’re trying to convey.

讲述故事：通过使用受影响者的故事来个性化这些政策，这些故事与您试图传达的数据相关。

This helps make the policies and outcomes more concrete and meaningful.

这有助于使政策和成果更加具体和有意义。

Some communities end up sicker than others.

一些社区最终比其他社区病情更严重。

That’s just the facts.

这只是事实。

We can argue about the best way to do that research, but canceling it simply because it may be linked to DEI doesn’t make anyone healthier.

我们可以争论进行这项研究的最佳方法，但仅仅因为它可能与 DEI 有关而取消它并不会让任何人变得更健康。

It just leaves communities like the Hill district behind.

它只是把山区这样的社区抛在了后面。

And in the end, it causes us all to move backward in our efforts to improve health in this country.

最终，它导致我们所有人改善这个国家健康的努力倒退。

Big thanks to MacKenzie Isaac & Legairre Radden, who reviewed this piece and generously shared their expertise and lived experience to help improve it.

非常感谢 MacKenzie Isaac 和 Legairre Radden，他们审阅了这篇文章，并慷慨地分享了他们的专业知识和生活经验，以帮助改进它。

Correction : The original version of this post included a different graphic to illustrate equity vs. equality.

更正：这篇文章的原始版本包含一个不同的图形来说明公平与平等。

Thanks to YLE reader Irene we learned that it wasn’t the best graphic.

感谢 YLE 读者 Irene，我们了解到这不是最好的图形。

You can read more about why here .

您可以在此处阅读更多有关原因的信息。

Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health.

Liz Marnik 博士是 The Evidence Collective 的执行董事，也是一名科学传播者和免疫学家，致力于公共信任、科学和公共卫生的交叉领域。

To discuss communication training on topics like health equity and storytelling, email Liz at liz@yle.health or learn more on our website .

要讨论有关健康公平和讲故事等主题的沟通培训，请发送电子邮件至 liz@yle.health 或在我们的网站上了解更多信息。

Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions.

您的当地流行病学家 (YLE) 由一个专家团队组成，其中包括医生、免疫学家、流行病学家和营养学家，他们共同努力实现一个目标：“转化”不断发展的公共卫生科学，以便人们有能力做出基于证据的决策。

The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries.

YLE 新闻通讯套件覆盖超过 132 个国家/地区的 475,000 多人。

This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members.

感谢 YLE 社区成员的慷慨支持，本通讯免费向所有人开放。

To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below:

为了支持这项工作，请订阅或升级如下：

Your Local Epidemiologist is a reader-supported publication.

《你的当地流行病学家》是一本由读者支持的出版物。

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

要接收新帖子并支持我的工作，请考虑成为免费或付费订阅者。

DEI has become a dirty word in politics, but food deserts exist whether or not we study them.

DEI 已成为政治上的肮脏词，但无论我们是否研究，食物荒漠都存在。

When Pittsburgh's Hill District finally got its first full-service supermarket in 2013, after three decades without one, residents said it felt like a 30-year weight lifted off their shoulders.

2013 年，匹兹堡山区终于拥有了第一家提供全方位服务的超市，此前三十年没有一家超市，居民们表示，感觉就像卸下了肩上 30 年的重担。

Six years later, that store closed anyway — proof that simply building access isn't enough.

六年后，那家商店还是关门了——这证明仅仅建立通道是不够的。

The real barriers are systemic: pricing, affordability, and decades of disinvestment, not personal choice.

真正的障碍是系统性的：定价、承受能力和数十年的撤资，而不是个人选择。

PHRESH, the study that tracked that supermarket, found diet improved only slightly, and not in ways tied to how often people actually shopped there.

PHRESH 是一项追踪该超市的研究，发现饮食仅略有改善，而且与人们实际在那里购物的频率无关。

We don't yet have the full answer to why access alone doesn't fix outcomes.

对于为什么单靠访问并不能解决结果，我们还没有完整的答案。

But we don't solve problems by ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.

但我们不会通过忽视问题或假装它们不存在来解决问题。

We need PHRESH, and more studies like it — because canceling that kind of research doesn't make anyone healthier.

我们需要 PHRESH，以及更多类似的研究——因为取消此类研究并不会让任何人变得更健康。

It just leaves communities like the Hill District behind, again.

它再次把像山区这样的社区抛在了后面。

I remember sharing that Angus Maguire art some time ago.

我记得不久前分享过安格斯·马奎尔的艺术作品。

This post cuts through the noise quite well.

这篇文章很好地消除了噪音。

Thank you.

谢谢。