The advocacy group Do No Harm is suing the American Chemical Society (ACS), arguing that its Scholars Program discriminates against applicants who are of white and Asian heritage. The ACS initiative, which began more than 30 years ago, awards scholarships of $5000 (£3880) to undergraduate students from historically underrepresented groups in the chemical sciences who are majoring in chemistry-related disciplines and intend to pursue careers in the field. It is renewable.
Do No Harm claims to represent physicians, medical students, patients, policymakers and others who want to keep ‘identity politics’ out of medical education and research, and it is primarily funded by donations from individuals, foundations and businesses.
Do No Harm does not disclose donors, but tax filings confirm that most of its funding came from a one-time $1 million donation from the non-profit Edelman Family Foundation and $1.45 million from the Project on Fair Representation, which advocates for race-neutral policies, according to Influence Watch.
The case is baseless. There is no good data supporting their cause
Matt Hartings, American University in Washington DC
In its legal complaint, Do No Harm argues that the ACS Scholars Program violates federal law by depriving white and Asian students of the right to participate in it. Students eligible for the scholarship include those of African descent or Black, Hispanic or Latino, Indigenous or a mix of any of those racial categories.
‘Do No Harm has at least one member who tried to apply for the society’s scholarship but who was told that she’s ineligible because she’s the wrong race,’ the lawsuit states. ‘And she will be excluded again in the future, absent an order from this court forcing the society to stop discriminating.’ Do No Harm is seeking ‘a declaratory judgment’ that the ACS is violating US civil rights laws through this programme, as well as a permanent injunction barring the organisation from considering an applicants’ race when selecting ACS Scholars.
Beyond the ACS, Do No Harm has also launched similar lawsuits that target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)-related activities at other organisations, including US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and the University of Colorado. These have both met with some success amid Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI efforts at federal agencies.
The ACS Scholars Program … was created because [the ACS] saw that black, Latine and Indigenous people didn’t become chemists
Paulette Vincent-Ruz, New Mexico State University
Do No Harm sued Pfizer in September 2022, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against its Breakthrough Fellowship Program on the grounds that it is ‘racially discriminatory’ and violates federal civil rights laws by ‘excluding whites and Asians’. The lawsuit sought a permanent injunction ordering Pfizer to formulate new, ‘race neutral’ eligibility requirements for the fellowship.
The stated goals of the company’s Breakthrough Fellowships is ‘to advance students with demonstrated commitment and ability to advance diversity, equity and inclusion for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans at Pfizer’.
Concessions extracted
Ultimately, the case against Pfizer was dismissed, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. Nevertheless, Pfizer ended its Breakthrough Fellowship, announcing in 31 January courts paper that it would no longer accept new applications for the programme.
Just about two weeks later, on 13 February, the University of Colorado School of Medicine agreed to significantly reform its Underrepresented Minority Visiting Elective Scholarship programme so applicants no longer had to belong to historically underrepresented racial minority groups. As part of the settlement of the lawsuit that Do No Harm launched in December 2024, the school renamed the initiative the Radiation Oncology Visiting Elective Scholarship.
DEI has become a hot button issue in the US since the pivotal Supreme Court decision in June 2023 , which essentially ended race-based university admissions programmes. Since then, there has been a sharp increase in legal actions filed by organisations challenging DEI efforts at various institutions.
The ACS said in a statement that it ‘does not comment on active litigation’.
Matt Hartings, a materials chemist and food scientist at the American University in Washington DC, says there is a history of the chemical profession ‘being discriminatory towards students and professionals from underrepresented groups’. He notes that the ACS Scholars Program, and others like it, are an attempt to make sure that anyone can succeed in chemistry.
‘The Do No Harm case is baseless. There is no good data supporting their cause,’ Hartings states. ‘ACS is a private organisation and the membership can do whatever they want with their funds.’
‘All of these lawsuits and these executive actions are based on the premise that diversity is not equal to excellence,’ says Paulette Vincent-Ruz, an assistant professor in New Mexico State University’s chemistry and biochemistry department. ‘The ACS Scholars Program has a very specific history – it was created because they saw that black, Latine and Indigenous people didn’t become chemists,’ she adds. Vincent-Ruz points to the most recent demographic data published by ACS, which indicates that just over half of all US Bachelor’s degree recipients in chemistry and biochemistry are white. Asian Americans make up 18.2%, with 8.1% Black, 13.2% LatinX or Hispanic, and Native Americans representing 0.4%.
Chemistry World contributor Chemjobber, a process chemist based in the US, is also concerned about the impact of the Do No Harm lawsuit on the organisation. ‘Lawsuits are not only about law and justice, but they are also about which side can bear more pain, both political and financial,’ he tells Chemistry World.
Derek Lowe, a US-based drug discovery chemist and Chemistry World columnist suggests that amid the current political climate, the pressure of the lawsuit alone could be enough to force a change. ‘My own rather cynical view is that they’re likely to cave in,’ he says. Lowe notes that the Trump administration has threatened non-profits with loss of their tax status and ‘publicly fighting a group like DNH’ might pose problems.
