Proposed Rule Change Could Shift Control of Research Grants to Political Appointees

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget has suggested changes to how federal research grants are controlled. This proposal could increase political appointees’ influence over these grants, particularly affecting health and science funding.

Potential Impacts on Research

The proposed rule change, published in the Federal Register, aims to give new authority to advance the president’s policy priorities. It could affect research fields such as housing, transportation, public health, vaccine testing, biotechnology, social and behavioral science, and climate science.

Although research has bipartisan support in Congress and trust in science is significant across the country, the Trump administration seems determined to harm the nation’s scientific enterprise, according to an editorial by Holden Thorp, editor of Science magazine.

Advocacy and science groups are rallying against this proposal. Cole Donovan, a policy analyst for Stand Up for Science, emphasizes their commitment to contest these changes.

Peer Review Under Threat

Since World War II, the U.S. scientific community has relied on peer review for maintaining research integrity. Typically, federal agencies adopt peer-reviewed recommendations on issues like vaccine schedules and environmental standards. Although not legally binding, peer review has helped ensure scientific projects’ quality.

Under the new rule, while peer review will remain, political appointees, not necessarily scientists, will need to review grants before awards are sanctioned. Critics argue this gives political officials veto power over scientifically approved projects.

Historian Tim Snyder warned during an online forum that this rule reminds him of ‘late Stalinism,’ where non-scientists had control over scientific decisions.

Concerns Over Political Influence

This proposed change has drawn sharp criticism, with parallels drawn to the McCarthy era when ideology and politics took precedence over professional credentials.

Proposed rule would replace scientific merit with McCarthy era politics, read a statement from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

The administration posits that this change aims for more efficiency in identifying and responding to waste, fraud, and abuse. However, critics, including Elizabeth Ginexi, a former National Institutes of Health staffer, argue this action is unfounded and dangerous.

Additionally, the proposed rule would ban research tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion or gender. It also seeks to limit international scientific collaborations.

Congressional Response and Public Comment

Democratic lawmakers are trying to garner public support against the proposal. Representative James Walkinshaw highlighted the potential harm of politically influenced research, stating the American public would ultimately suffer from denied promising research.

Although public comments on the proposal are open until July 13, significant congressional intervention is unlikely. If passed, legal challenges are anticipated.