Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today.
Six weeks ago, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a new rule that would drastically alter the federal grantmaking process. The proposed rule would give political appointees the power to approve or deny funding to scientific projects.
Among other changes, the rule would also allow federal agencies to terminate active grants they deem inconsistent with agency priorities and to prohibit federal grants from being used for publication costs and open access fees.
The OMB is accepting public comments on the proposal until 13 July, and organizations across the country have mobilized to coordinate responses during the 45-day comment period. As of 9 July, more than 98,900 comments have been submitted. Some, such as one from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) asked OMB director Russell Vought to extend the comment period by no less than 90 days.
The most vocal public response has been from the scientific community, which largely opposes the proposed rule. Organizations such as Stand Up for Science, the American Physical Society, and AGU have launched tools to make the comment submission process easier.
“This is not a routine regulatory update,” wrote AGU President Brandon Jones in June. “[W]hat it actually does is restructure the foundational rules of U.S. science funding—with cascading impact for global collaborators—to serve political priorities rather than the public good.”
Below is a sampling of comments. To submit your own comment on the proposed rule, join 1,000+ others who have shared their concerns through AGU’s Action Center.
Comments From Scientists
- “Because most grants in my field have durations between 2 and 6 years, this rule would make planning long term experiments and sustaining support for trainees nearly impossible. Depending on the outcomes of yearly elections and the oppositional priorities of political parties, grants could be cancelled on a whim any given year of a research project, leaving the promising science that was funded unfinished, scientists suddenly without jobs, and promising students abandoning opportunities that may have changed their life.” –Robert Denton, a biology professor at Ball State University
- “Scientific communication, whether through professional meetings or peer-reviewed publications, is the only way to share scientific findings. An individual working alone, with no route to sharing their work, does no good to society. Ideas thrive when they are shared, tested and amended, all of which happens through publications and presentations. Restricting this avenue to share results damages our nation and leaves us unable to compete.” –Tanya Furman (AGU board member)
- “I am really frightened by OMB’s proposed change to 200.340, which would allow agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they are determined to be inconsistent with federal priorities. This turns grantmaking into an entirely political process, and means that the kinds of science we’re able to do could shift every 2-4 years. Scientific progress that serves the American people takes longer than 2-4 years to come to fruition. With this kind of disruption, America would quickly lose our status as a leading scientific power.” –Hannah Mark, geoscientist
- Note: The proposed changes to 200.340 involve allowing the agency to cancel grants that no longer serve “Federal agency program goals or priorities.” “Part 200” is also known as “Uniform Guidance.”
- “It goes without saying that all Americans – regardless of political affiliation – want health care that more quickly addresses their needs and reduces their risks for harms such as bloodstream infections and prolonged hospitalizations. Yet allowing unqualified political appointees to interfere with the scientific process imperils these universally held goals.” –Scott Halpern, professor of medicine, epidemiology, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania
- “The passage of Vought’s ‘Uniform Guidance’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science. This rule would funnel decision power about what science is done, by whom, for whom, with whom, and effectively isolate scientists from the rest of the world. This is anti-democractic and anti-American.” –Colette Delawalla, founder of Stand Up for Science
- “I am a scientist. The US scientific system is the best in the world. Our universities, labs, and companies attract the most brilliant scientists from everywhere in the world to come to the US and keep us as the undisputed world leader in fields from AI to crop science. This creates jobs and wealth for our country. This proposed rule change threatens to obliterate science in the US.” –Edward Ricemeyer
- “The proposed OMB changes to grants would have severe negative effects on American science, and I oppose all of the proposed changes. … The peer review system used to evaluate research proposals at the NSF and NIH is a gold-standard system that is the envy of the rest of the world. I have served on NSF grant panels and also evaluated proposals for national grant agencies in Canada and multiple European countries. I am confident that our system leads to funding for the best science proposals, and our current peer review system leads to improvements in proposals and funded projects.” –Brian I.
Comments in Favor
- “I support generally support any and all federal rules and regulations that help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to expenditure of taxpayer monies. In particular, I support the proposed OMB 2026-0034 Rule 200.450. … I support the OMB’s proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of the federal grant and assistance programs. It will improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse.” –Marc Jensen
- Note: Proposed changes to section 200.450 would “expressly prohibit funding any voter registration campaigns, drives, or related activities under Federal awards.”
- “American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps.” – Tamara Harrison, with the same comment from Wayne Worden
- “I strongly support the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed reforms in federal grant and assistance programs. I want stronger verification including identity verification of grant applicants, tighter recipient vetting, and agency authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse.” –Agnes Puzak
–Emily Gardner (@emfurd.bsky.social), Associate Editor
These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at [email protected].
