The Time to Save Science is Now

Having heard about a Trump Administration proposal to make federal research grants subject to the approval of political appointees, I fortunately remembered Pharma blogger Derek Lowe's tireless efforts to chronicle and explain the Trump Administration's attacks on bioscience.

I am glad I did, because his relatively short post, "Action! Action Now," summarizes the threat, leads to good sources for more information, and explains what one can do to fight this horrendous proposal.

Without explicitly mentioning Lysenkoism, Lowe will have ably reminded anyone of it:

All this alone is enough of a blueprint for disaster, obviously. But that same section goes on to pound the nails in further by emphasizing that peer review recommendations must not be considered as binding in any way on the decisions of the political staff, and that all grants must comply with the administration's "Gold Standard Science" ideas. Institutions that have shown themselves willing to get on board with this nebulous cloud of bullshit will get priority in grant awards; it says so in as many words (well, minus the "nebulous bullshit" part). What is "Gold Standard Science", you may well ask? Whatever the administration likes. No definitions are provided. What's more, active grants will be subject to termination at any time if they are held to be inconsistent with agency priorities. Who decides that? Why, political appointees, who else?. No other basis is needed - no accusations of proof of malfeasance or fraud, just "We don't like it". [bold added]

The bullet points from one of Lowe's sources alone are cause for alarm (Search "Elizabeth Ginexi OMB rule" if link does not work.):

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards
2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding
3. "Gold Standard Science" as an Undefined Political Test
4. Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason
5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions
6. Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration
7. "Domestic-First" Framework for Research Awards
8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational "Affiliations"
9. E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients
10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies
11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval
12. Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be "Necessary"
13. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable
14. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted
15. New "Issue Advocacy" Prohibition
16. Program Goals Must "Align with Administration Policies and Priorities"
17. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice
18. Agencies Can Restrict Eligibility to Specific Nonprofit Categories
19. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants

What the hell?

I have long advocated getting the government out of research funding not directly related to its proper purpose (e.g., defense), but know that this is an unrealistic goal in the short- to medium- term. That said, I have just as long advocated that what funding there is be dispensed as best as domain experts can determine and be as free as possible from political considerations.

This proposal would accomplish the exact opposite of all of that. As such, it arguably would be worse than simply cutting off all such funding cold turkey.

Indeed, the possibility of the government dictating how scientists work is, by itself, a major reason to end its role as a major funding source.

I highly recommend reading Lowe's post in its entirety, especially to anyone whose career might be affected. Among other things, he offers a concrete step anyone can take to speak up.

-- CAV