Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
Recognizing that equity, diversity, and inclusion in federally funded health research is necessary to enhance scientific excellence, and ensure equitable outcomes for patients in the United States.
A Democratic resolution with 5 Democratic cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
H. Res. 1437 is a resolution introduced in the House of Representatives that recognizes equity, diversity, and inclusion in federally funded health research as necessary for scientific excellence and equitable patient outcomes. The text highlights concerns over a proposed White House Office of Management and Budget rule and an Executive Order that would give political appointees oversight of grants and de-emphasize peer review. It notes that more than 230 research universities and academic medical centers warned that the proposed changes would add unnecessary restrictions and burdens. The resolution points out that women, people of color, and other groups have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials and medical research. Ultimately, the House of Representatives resolves to recognize the necessity of equity and diversity in research, commit to addressing systemic barriers, oppose politically motivated efforts to impede the peer-review process, and urge the administration to maintain an apolitical review process.
Yes· 3 of 20
- Scored +4
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
The resolution addresses historical underrepresentation and health disparities affecting Black patients.
- Scored +4
Would women be better off under this?
The resolution explicitly calls out the historical exclusion of women from clinical trials and advocates for gender equity in research.
- Scored +4
Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated?
The resolution explicitly commits to addressing systemic barriers and disparities affecting people of color in medical research.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Commitment to Underserved Communities: Under resolved clause (2), the House of Representatives recognizes and commits to addressing systemic barriers in federally funded research projects for underserved and underrepresented communities. This could benefit these groups by working to remove bias in funding, publication, and representation.
-
Support for Science-Based Review: Under resolved clause (3), the House opposes arbitrary and politically motivated efforts to impede the science-based, meritorious review process of federally funded research projects. This could benefit the public by keeping the long-standing health innovation standards intact.
-
Preserving Apolitical Standards: Under resolved clause (4), the House urges the administration to maintain the longstanding, apolitical, science-backed peer review process. This is intended to ensure that research applications continue to be judged on scientific merit and innovation.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions that outline potential negative impacts or burdens created for individuals or groups by this resolution. The text itself is a resolution expressing the stance of the House of Representatives and criticizing separate executive actions and proposed rules from the administration.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The resolution addresses historical underrepresentation and health disparities affecting Black patients. Would women be better off under this? — The resolution explicitly calls out the historical exclusion of women from clinical trials and advocates for gender equity in research. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The resolution promotes equitable healthcare outcomes and research inclusion for minority populations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The resolution promotes inclusion and addresses disparities affecting Hispanic and other minority populations. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The resolution acknowledges LGBTQ patients as a group experiencing health disparities that require inclusive research. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households often experience health disparities that are targeted for reduction by inclusive research initiatives. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The resolution supports addressing health disparities in historically underserved communities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from medical research tailored to capture accurate outcomes across diverse aging populations. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors benefit heavily from health research that addresses age-related conditions and diverse demographic impacts. Would children be better off under this? — Inclusive health research benefits children by ensuring pediatric treatments account for diverse populations. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals benefit from equitable research addressing chronic conditions and life stages. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The resolution highlights the necessity of including diverse populations, including individuals with disabilities, in research. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from health research frameworks designed to be inclusive of all demographic groups.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The resolution highlights the historical exclusion of women in clinical trials and advocates for inclusive health research. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The resolution explicitly commits to addressing systemic barriers and disparities affecting people of color in medical research. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The resolution recognizes the importance of inclusion for LGBTQ individuals in addressing health disparities.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The resolution promotes equity, diversity, and inclusion in health research to ensure better outcomes for all patients. Does this put more money into medical research? — The resolution supports maintaining robust federally funded health research and protecting the peer-review process.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The resolution advocates for scientific excellence and integrity through apolitical peer review in research.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The resolution urges an apolitical, science-backed review process for public grants.
- 8/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2026
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
Steve CohenDemocrat · Tennessee
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina