Last week, the White House unveiled draft regulations that could significantly alter the landscape of US science if put into effect.
The proposed rule from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would empower political appointees to have the final say on the distribution of billions in federal research funding. This funding would be based not on scientific merit but on alignment with “the President’s policy priorities,” potentially allowing the suspension or termination of “grantees out of alignment.”
Traditionally, peer review panels composed of scientific experts evaluate research proposals to determine funding allocations. These panels are expected to operate without conflicts of interest, fostering a process where the most impactful proposals for public good are prioritized. However, the new rule could disrupt this system by allowing political appointees, who may lack scientific expertise, to assess proposals, overturn expert decisions, and redirect funding based on presidential priorities.
This rule would apply to the entire federal grant-making process, affecting the approximately $200 billion spent annually on research and development, as well as discretionary funds managed by agencies like FEMA. The Trump administration positions this rule as enhancing transparency, accountability, and oversight to curb wasteful spending, despite having fired 55% of inspectors general in federal agencies, potentially increasing opportunities for waste and fraud. Additionally, they proposed a $1.8 billion slush fund for allies.
This rule is fundamentally about the Trump administration’s desire to steer federal science towards its political agenda, posing a threat to scientific integrity and independence at the public’s cost. Here’s why this issue is important and what actions can be taken.
An authoritarian move to centralize power
The proposed rule substitutes scientific merit with a political loyalty test, a tactic reminiscent of authoritarian strategies to concentrate power, control information, and suppress inconvenient truths. It suggests that agencies might consider an applicant’s history of questionable practices based on verifiable public information, effectively becoming a litmus test for researchers’ statements that the administration might find objectionable, threatening scientists’ First Amendment rights. Over the past year, attacks on higher education and efforts to conform institutions to the administration’s will have been observed. If implemented, this rule would allow the administration to further leverage government resources and taxpayer money to pressure universities and researchers into supporting its agenda.
Undermining scientific integrity and independence
Scientific integrity involves adherence to professional and ethical standards in research. When political appointees ignore honesty and objectivity in managing and communicating science, it violates this integrity. These violations can manifest as censorship, data alteration, or dismissing scientists for their findings. Key elements of scientific integrity include transparency, inclusivity, accuracy, and protection from undue influence. Such integrity in grantmaking fuels innovation and economic progress. The rule explicitly grants political appointees authority over funding decisions, which raises concerns given the Trump administration’s history and OMB’s leadership under Russell Vought.
A policy change that sacrifices the public good
Federal research funding in the US is crucial for scientific and medical advancements, significantly enhancing our lives. NIH research has contributed to treatments reducing the lethality of diseases like cancer and lowering pesticide exposure in children. NSF grants have facilitated the development of the internet and smartphone technology, including touchscreens and lithium-ion batteries. NASA’s space research has enabled GPS and improved eye surgery. USDA research helps manage wildfire risks and evacuation planning, while NOAA research aids in predicting droughts affecting agriculture and water supply. These achievements could be jeopardized if political interests control research agendas.
What we can do now to fight back
To counter these threats to science, consider these actions:
- Submit a public comment by July 13th. Express how this proposal could harm the scientific community, halting essential research. Use our resources to get involved and voice your opposition.
- Sign this petition to show your support for the Scientific Integrity Act. Reintroduced in the US Senate, this bill seeks to protect federal scientists from political meddling and ensure decisions are based on evidence. With independent science under pressure, Congress must act quickly to reinforce these protections.
- Share this blog post with your network to raise awareness and build resistance against this proposed change that threatens independent science.
