Scientists in the United States are mobilising against a proposed government rule that could fundamentally alter the allocation of federal research funding. The rule, put forward by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Russ Vought on 29th May, seeks to place all federal grants, including those for scientific research, under the direct control of political appointees rather than subject-matter experts. This has sparked significant alarm among the scientific community, who fear the implications for independent research and international collaboration.
Colette Delawalla, a clinical psychologist and founder of the group Stand Up for Science, has been at the forefront of this opposition. She recently visited Capitol Hill, engaging with over 30 members of Congress to highlight the potential dangers of the OMB proposal. Delawalla expressed deep concern over specific examples of research that could be jeopardised, citing a clinical trial addressing parental suicidal ideation after infant death, which relies on international collaboration – a practice potentially prohibited under the new rule.
Critics argue that the proposed rule, which reportedly includes provisions to prohibit anything that "promote[s] anti-American values" and demands that discretionary awards "demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities," would effectively create a politically controlled funding mechanism. Elizabeth Ginexi, a former National Institutes of Health (NIH) programme official, highlighted these requirements, suggesting a shift towards ideologically driven funding decisions. Delawalla has described the potential outcome as a "£1.5 trillion slush fund" under political influence, warning it could "dismantle the US science ecosystem" and all federal discretionary grants.
Stand Up for Science is employing various strategies to combat the proposal. They are urging the public to submit comments on the rule before the federal government's 13th July deadline, providing guidance on their website for effective participation. As of Thursday morning, nearly 31,000 comments had been submitted to the OMB's page on the rule. Furthermore, the organisation is exploring legal avenues, with Delawalla having convened a virtual meeting with approximately 50 attorneys across the US to discuss potential responses should the rule be enacted.
The pushback by scientists like Delawalla, who was recently recognised by Scientific American for her activism, underscores a growing concern within the US scientific community about political interference in research. This situation draws parallels with previous instances where scientific integrity has been perceived as being under threat, highlighting ongoing tensions between political agendas and the independence of scientific inquiry.