Proposed US Funding Rules Threaten Science Research

The Trump administration's proposed new funding rules for US science research have sparked concerns among scientists and experts. Last August, an executive order was issued with the intention of fundamentally altering how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the current system, peer reviewers rate the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies use these ratings to determine which grants get funded.

However, under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they are specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers. This shift in decision-making authority has raised concerns that politics could trump science in the funding process. The administration has since lost several court cases related to executive orders, which have been vacated due to lack of strong justification.

To avoid a similar fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process. The proposed rules have far-reaching implications for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would also allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban grants on certain culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on activities such as publishing papers and attending conferences.

The changes could have a chilling effect on the scientific community, with some experts warning that it could undermine the US's position as a scientific superpower. The proposed rules are a significant departure from the current system, which has long relied on peer review and scientific merit to guide funding decisions.