American scientists are in turmoil over the Trump administration’s plan to give priority to federal research funding from now on be assessed by political officials. Research must be consistent with the government’s line and the ‘national interest’.
That is the gist of a new draft guideline for research financing by the White House Management and Budget Office (OMB). The 412-page document is an expression of Trump’s intention to overhaul science.
Shortly after taking office he issued a decree to restore the ‘gold standard’ in science, which in his eyes is now left-wing and unpatriotic. He wants an end to research into gender, racial diversity and other topics that he believes diminish the greatness of America. In August, the president signed a new decree to give officials more control over investigations.
The detailed guidelines, which will undergo a consultation period of 45 days before they become final, represent a radical revolution in the assessment of research. In line with Trump’s decrees, federal grants would have to be approved by political appointees, who would ensure that the proposed research is consistent with administration policy and national interests. Assessment by fellow scientists, peer reviewis given a lesser role in the process and is not seen as mandatory or binding.
According to the government, the rules are intended to increase “transparency” in science. The criticism that science is being subordinated to politics is expressed by an OMB spokesperson to CNN retorted: “Federal subsidies had already been politicized, for a radical left agenda. That now stops.”
The White House proposal is one “shameless power grab” in science according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). “I think people realize this the big one is,” says a spokesperson of the action group Stand Up For Science Nature. “If this gets through, we’re done.” The magazine Science calls on researchers to protest and prepare lawsuits when the guidelines are finalized.
Some scientists acknowledge that the current system has or still sees flaws a “silver lining” to the proposals because they exempt certain fees. But more than 3,500 mostly negative comments have now been published on the directive, which the government must respond to. The hopes of the concerned scientists are pinned on the US Congress, which can consider the directive in the event of overwhelming criticism.
Critics of Trump’s attack on “left” science point out that it is systematic and was announced in 2011 Project 2025, think tank The Heritage Foundation’s conservative-revolutionary blueprint for Trump’s second term.