GoKawiilA sneaky rule change has the potential to blow up scientific research in the United States. But there’s still time to fight it.
On May 29th, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a 412-page proposal to revise federal financial assistance. The language is a combination of distinctly Trumpian attacks on “woke” policies and boring governmentese designed to make your eyes glaze over as quickly as possible. But under phrases like “providing further clarification on the regulatory status of the OMB requirements” is something darker — a threat to scientific research in this country, the livelihoods of thousands of scientists, and the lives of millions of vulnerable people.
If this rule change goes forward, science in the US “will stop,” says Colette Delawalla, the founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science. “It won’t exist anymore.”
But OMB must look at — and address — all substantive public comments, and the rule change remains open for comments until July 13th. Another route also has potential. If Congress submits an objection, it’s possible the rule change would not go forward.
The rule change would require political oversight of more than $1 trillion of federal grants across 42 different agencies. Federal grants are what pay for most of the scientific research, and the researchers, at universities across the country, from research into new vaccines to studies on natural hazards. If the rule passes, political appointees could look over and veto any grant, for any reason, at any time. Scientists could not collaborate with colleagues in many other countries. They could not go to conferences without preapproval, and would be prevented from using their research money to publish their work so the public could access it. All federal grants must align with “the President’s policy priorities,” and all mentions of “DEI” (diversity, equity, and inclusion) or “gender ideology” are immediately off the table. People applying for research funding who can’t fulfill these demands, the rule change says, are welcome to get funding elsewhere. If you don’t like it, the document implies, leave.
“Saying that the NIH or NSF or whoever has been funding neo-Marxist things, that’s not evidence. That’s not a reason. That’s nonsense.”
And while scientists have been vocal about their concerns, they are far from the only ones affected. The rule change sweeps over agencies including Education, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, NASA, and Health and Human Services. All of them offer federal grants that fund programs from mental healthcare access to low-income housing to Head Start programs.
The effects of the second Donald Trump administration on scientific research have already been traumatic. Grants have been cancelled or delayed, and graduate student enrollment is decreasing at top schools.
In most scientific research, peer review is required to get experiments published. Scientists submit their findings to a journal, and the journal reaches out to other scientists in the field, asking them to critique the work. At the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the same goes for federal grants that give scientists the money to do that work in the first place.
“It’s looked at by three scientists on a study section who read the proposal fairly carefully and write critiques, and then it’s discussed at the study section meeting, and that gets a score based on that, and then that goes to advisory councils,” explains Jeremy Berg, former editor-in-chief of the Science journals and former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH.
... continue reading