The US research community has mobilised forcefully against a new White House proposal that would give political appointees power over who gets federal research grants. The proposal asserts that ‘peer review remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion’. Among those speaking out are the leaders of major science organisations and at least one prominent chemistry Nobel laureate.
Politicians will decide what research to fund … what could possibly go wrong with that?
Marcia McNutt, National Academy of Sciences
The Trump administration’s 29 May proposal makes ‘major changes in how our government manages research funding’, said the US National Academy of Sciences’ president Marcia McNutt at her annual State of Science Address on 2 June. ‘The proposal is that politicians will decide what research to fund, what meetings scientists are allowed to attend, and whether and where the results can be published,’ she warned. ‘Now, what could possibly go wrong with that?’ McNutt quipped.
In addition to ‘dramatically expanding federal oversight’, she stated that this regulation would be another administrative burden on researchers, increasing the number of conflicts of interest disclosures, requiring additional justifications for any payment and adding additional foreign affiliation disclosures.
The rule, floated by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Russell Vought, would require that political appointees at science agencies approve research awards before they are funded and allow ongoing research grants to be terminated at any time if they are deemed ‘inconsistent’ with programme goals or agency priorities. If enacted, the regulation would also prohibit foreign entities from receiving research awards unless there is prior written approval from a senior political appointee.
Further, the proposed rule would forbid researchers involved in such awards from using grants to attend any conference without the inclusion of an explicit pre-approval at the time of funding. In addition, it would make all scientific journal publication costs, including article processing charges, inadmissible under such grants unless specifically required by federal statute or approved in advance by the federal funding agency on a case-by-case basis.
The controversial proposal was also the topic of a separate virtual ‘Emergency Science Meeting’ also hosted on 2 June by the nonprofit Stand Up for Science. During the event, chemistry Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi, who won the chemistry Nobel prize in 2022, addressed over 2000 attendees remotely from an airport where she was waiting to board a flight.
A ‘five-alarm fire’
‘I find myself, as I’m turning 60 in a few months, suddenly in unprecedented times where the federal government, which throughout my lifetime had been a staunch supporter of basic science as well as applied science, is turning in a different direction,’ Bertozzi said. She added that the US scientific community had now mobilised because of ‘the recent release of new policies from OMB that would threaten the quality of science and that would diminish my ability – and all of our abilities as scientists – to serve the nation in the ways that we could’.
Bertozzi went on to express hope that this will be ‘the beginning of many conversations that lead to an escalating outcry and civic engagement’ on the part of scientists. ‘This is a five-alarm fire,’ she warned, urging fellow researchers and scientists to understand the implications of these policies and make their voices heard. The public comment period on the rule in question is open through 13 July but these proposed changes are slated to take effect on 1 October when the new financial year begins. So far, more than 4600 comments had been submitted.
The chief executive of the Association for the Advancement of American Science, Sudip Parikh, also came out swinging against the OMB proposal. ‘This latest move is a brazen power grab by the director of OMB to buck the will of Congress and the American people and will make future discoveries less likely,’ he said in a statement. ‘If this rule becomes final, Americans’ hopes for future cures, national security, and economic strength will rely on the scientific sensibilities of the nation’s chief bureaucrat.’
Meanwhile, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said it is ‘highly concerned about the substance, breadth and pace of the proposed changes’, arguing that ‘changes to the US scientific infrastructure should be driven by evidence, designed with community involvement, and implemented thoughtfully’. The organisation plans to submit formal comments and urged its members to submit comments as well.
Stand Up for Science notes that it was among many in the US scientific research community who last year warned about such executive overreach after President Trump issued several controversial directives. These included a ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ executive order that was framed as an effort to re-establish public trust in government research but criticised as an attempt to suppress evidence running counter to the administration’s policy goals, and another directive that required political appointees to review federal research grants and funding opportunities to ensure they aligned with administration priorities.
No comments yet