Key facts
- A proposed Office of Management and Budget rule could shift federal science funding decisions from expert review to political priorities.
- The rule would allow political appointees to make final funding decisions and cancel grants based on political whims.
- Scientific organizations, including the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Physical Society, have criticized the proposal.
- The deadline for public feedback on the rule is July 13.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule that could fundamentally alter how federal scientific research grants are awarded and managed in the United States. If finalized, the rule would shift decision-making power from scientific experts and peer review to political appointees, potentially allowing funding to be dictated by political priorities and administrative whims.
The proposal, which is open for public comment until July 13, has drawn widespread criticism from leading scientific organizations. These groups argue that the changes would undermine the integrity of scientific research, create an unpredictable funding environment, and jeopardize long-term scientific progress. Concerns include the potential for grants to be canceled based on vague criteria like 'in the national interest' or 'aligned with administration policies,' and the requirement for political approval for activities such as publishing research or attending conferences.
Organizations like the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Physical Society have voiced strong opposition. They contend that relying on political alignment over scientific merit risks damaging decades of innovation and US leadership in scientific fields. The OMB, however, states the changes aim to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight, and to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted.