AKA NargacugaBalls

Scientists across multiple disciplines are sounding the alarm after the White House proposed taking greater control over how scientific research gets funded and allowing political appointees to decide whether to approve scientific grants.

Critics of the proposed rule say it would codify the administration's attempts to destroy the scientific research enterprise in the US that has led to remarkable discoveries on treating cancer, HIV and rare diseases — as well as understanding weather and climate science and developing artificial intelligence. It could have far-reaching implications on what kinds of research topics get studied in the first place.

One of the main casualties in OMB's proposal would be the country's longstanding scientific peer review process for grantmaking. Peer review has been widely used since the post-World War II research boom, and relies on panels of experts in their fields judging federal funding decisions on the scientific merit of the grant proposals, rather than any politically-motivated criteria.

The proposed rule would also ban research on diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as gender, and stop federally funded international scientific collaborations. And OMB's changes could target more than scientific research — applying to other federal grant awards from agencies to state and local governments.

"This proposal does not just apply to scientific research funding, it applies to other federal awards in all kinds of contexts," said Stanford Law School professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette.

Kate Marvel, a climate scientist who recently left NASA due to political interference in climate-science research there, said peer review has long been an enabler of America's scientific leadership.

"One of the reasons the USA has historically been such a research superpower is that we've had a merit-based science funding system, where research is funded by the federal government based on the assessments of other scientists," she said.