GoKawiilNear the end of May, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a new rule that would govern how the federal government handles the grants it issues, including those that fund the vast majority of scientific research in the US.
If formalized, the rule would make political priorities the prime determinant of what science gets funded and sideline the opinions of scientific experts. Grants could be canceled due to political whims, and new layers of bureaucracy would inhibit basic scientific activities like publishing papers and attending conferences. Unlike the executive orders it echoes, it would have the force of law behind it and be significantly harder to challenge in court.
Before coming into force, however, the proposal must go through a process that includes public feedback and (potentially) changes in response. The deadline for that feedback—Monday, July 13—is rapidly approaching.
I’m here to explain what makes this proposal so dangerous, why your feedback matters, and how you can craft an effective submission.
Why this matters
In Ars’ initial coverage of the OMB proposal, I identified many potential problems with the rules. They specifically sidelined peer review as the primary meausre of scientific merit; gave political appointees the final decision on funding; allowed the government to cancel any grant at any time after it was issued; allowed decisions to be made based on vague political litmus tests like “in the national interest” and “aligned with administration policies and priorities”; and required political appointees to approve any spending for conferences or publishing.
The OMB justifies these changes as an effort to “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight” and “reduce recipient burden.” Its goal, as stated in the introduction to the rules, is “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused, activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with law and policy, and recipients are held accountable when they fail to meet relevant standards.”