Research Study on Healthy Eating Faces Unexpected Termination

Roderick Blair found himself quite taken aback when researchers showed up at his door in the Homewood neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On that summer day, his driveway was filled with police cars, an ambulance, and even a TV news crew, while a helicopter hovered overhead. The neighborhood showed signs of neglect: young trees popping through roof gutters, broken windows, and crumbling sidewalks. Overgrown grass leaned against worn-out chain link fences.

Blair, who is 70 and a retired emergency preparedness worker with a background on Capitol Hill, was not exactly thrilled to be chosen randomly for a research trial focused on healthy eating.

“There’s a historical stubbornness among some researchers when it comes to studying Black populations,” he remarked, expressing skepticism. “I just didn’t want to be part of that.”

Despite his initial reluctance, time spent with the researchers allowed him to see their genuine commitment. Over a decade of involvement in various data collection efforts followed, which included wearing monitoring devices and answering deeply personal survey questions about his life experiences, education, and even trauma. Eventually, they asked him to participate in a cognitive test.

“At first, it seemed pretty straightforward. But when they suggested cognitive tests, I wasn’t interested,” he recounted.

Then a pleasant young proctor persuaded him to change his mind, leading him to take the test—twice. This final evaluation aimed to identify cognitive changes related to Alzheimer’s disease.

However, Blair—and about 600 other participants—might never know the outcomes of their cognitive tests due to grant terminations by the Trump administration, despite the researchers having all the necessary data to provide results.

“We really let our participants down by not being able to give them information and feedback based on their test results,” said Tamara Dubowitz, a primary investigator on the study. She also serves as a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and chair of epidemiology, although she spoke in her personal capacity.

The “Phresh” study had been a 15-year endeavor that started by investigating food deserts but grew into an extensive collection of data reflecting the life experiences and cognitive health of two low-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods near a major Alzheimer’s research center. The funding cuts jeopardize timely diagnoses for Alzheimer’s and dementia in these communities, a critical factor for effective treatment.

Nearly 7 million people in the US suffer from Alzheimer’s, with Black Americans showing nearly double the risk of developing the condition, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Historically, this risk has been viewed through the lens of individual factors.

However, researchers are rethinking this notion, emphasizing that the risks are often linked to systemic issues like neighborhood disinvestment and the long-term effects of discrimination. Blair’s experiences, along with others’ stories and data gathered through surveys and monitoring devices, shed light on these complex factors.

There isn’t a singular way that race has been addressed in Alzheimer’s research, but it’s noted that studies tend to favor wealthier and predominantly white participants. Only a fraction of brain-imaging studies report racial diversity, highlighting a significant imbalance in representation.

Under the Trump administration, there has been a push to reshape scientific priorities, resulting in the disruption of thousands of medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Researchers were given an unexpectedly short window to wind down the Phresh study—much earlier than anticipated, making it nearly impossible to analyze cognitive results with the necessary expertise.

For Blair, the study’s cancellation felt like a pointed act of retribution, saying, “If you don’t comply, you’ll pay the price.” He added, “What has this administration done that isn’t about retribution?”

Dubowitz’s study was unique in its design—it was initially funded during the Obama administration at a time when obesity and food deserts were pressing public concerns.

The study compared two similar neighborhoods, both lacking access to grocery stores. The Hill District was getting a store, while Homewood was not. That led to the name Pittsburgh Hill/Homewood Research on Eating, Shopping and Health (Phresh).

Participants were randomly chosen to assess the health impacts of the new grocery store, which is how Blair’s involvement began. This approach significantly diverges from typical research models that rely on voluntary participation.

In the initial findings, Dubowitz noticed health improvements in the Hill District but not in Homewood, and the reasons weren’t as straightforward as she expected. Instead of connecting health improvements to the availability of grocery stores, they appeared to be tied to neighborhood investments. The scope of the study was later expanded to include aspects like environmental noise and overall mental health after discussions with participants.

“As we gathered data on grocery shopping habits, it became clear people were facing deeper mental health challenges,” La’vette Wagner, the field coordinator for Phresh, noted.

Eventually, the research shifted to focus on the community as a whole rather than comparing neighborhoods. Participants shared valuable insights into their life experiences, highlighting how childhood trauma influences long-term health outcomes.

Questions about trauma, education, and health were met with intimate disclosures from participants. Many shared stories of personal struggles—caring for grandchildren, financial hardships, and the realities of living with the threat of violence. Some also recounted how friends or family members had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, further emphasizing the relevance of the study.

“In our community, we often misinterpret someone’s behavior as just being withdrawn, missing the signs of deeper issues,” Wagner explained. “But now, people are starting to seek help and get their loved ones tested.”

August saw the study poised for impactful insights into brain health and social epidemiology, just after completing the second round of cognitive evaluations when the termination notices arrived.

NIH director Jay Bhattacharya, appointed during the Trump presidency, criticized long-accepted metrics linking trauma and discrimination to health outcomes as out of alignment with NIH priorities.

The sudden termination of funding appears likely to skew future studies toward predominantly white participants, further reinforcing existing disparities in research.

In 2025, the administration canceled numerous scientific grants, claiming they were linked to diversity and inclusion efforts. Some grants managed to return after legal disputes, but the cancellation trend has persisted into the following year, affecting yet more studies.

Alongside the Phresh study, two other brain health grants were also ended—takedowns considered by legal analysts as test cases for future court rulings. All focused on exploring how discrimination impacts mental health.

According to Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor, the administration’s actions might consist of lawfully dubious tactics, “trying to find ways to do the same thing but maintain legal cover.”

At the University of Pittsburgh, around 90 grants totaling about $33 million have faced cancellation. Emory University has seen losses amounting to $92 million.

The University of Pittsburgh is actively appealing the NIH’s decision; their communications head, Jared Stonesifer, expressed optimism based on strong legal grounds.

Moreover, researchers at Pitt are among the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the NIH, asserting that the current administration is trying to suppress unsettling research findings.

Olga Akselrod, with the American Civil Liberties Union, highlighted that silencing research can lead to serious health consequences, particularly for marginalized groups facing significant health disparities.

As the Trump administration seeks to reshape federal grant-making under more political control, the Phresh study represented a critical effort in connecting brain health to the effects of adverse life experiences—yet it wasn’t the only one facing termination.

The Cobra study, which examined brain aging through diverse participants’ biomarkers, was also canceled. At Emory, another professor was exploring the impacts of discrimination on brain health.

In these contexts, race isn’t just a category; it encapsulates a wider array of experiences linked to trauma and deprivation.

“It’s crucial to understand that this isn’t solely about race,” Andrea Rosso, a Pitt epidemiology professor, pointed out, stressing that the health consequences of social and economic factors are documented.

Research shows that individuals seen in clinical studies often differ significantly from those in the community, with many having complex health conditions beyond traditional Alzheimer’s pathology.

The longstanding links between deprivation, trauma, and health outcomes are backed by comprehensive research. One notable study, the ACEs initiative, established connections between childhood traumas and lasting health effects, raising alarms among researchers when this data is labeled as unscientific.

NIH arguments dismissing self-reported measures as invalid threaten the core of mental health research, with experts asserting these measures are critical for understanding connections between trauma and health.

As researchers reported alarming findings connected to blood tests for Alzheimer’s, the risks of combinatorial health issues mean the necessity of diverse research pools is clear.

“This grant’s cancellation feels like a considerable setback,” said Cohen, who led the Cobra study. “We had significant plans for further developments in this area, and now our crucial data could be lost.”

As Wagner cleans out her office in the Hill District, preparing for whatever comes next, her primary concern lies with the participants.

“We wanted to provide feedback on their test results and see if anyone needed follow-up. We were in the works of putting together letters for those in need,” she reflected. “Now, that’s coming to an abrupt halt.”

A representative from HHS, responsible for overseeing NIH, did not respond when asked for clarification.