**US Research Community Acts Against New White House Grant Initiative**
In a notable development, the US research community has vehemently opposed a recent White House initiative that seeks to place political appointees in charge of federal research grants. This initiative, unveiled on 29th May by the Trump administration, indicates that peer review will serve only in an advisory capacity, leaving ultimate authority with the agencies. The revelation has raised alarms among many, including leaders from major scientific bodies and notable individuals such as Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi.
During her State of Science Address on 2nd June, National Academy of Sciences President, Marcia McNutt, criticized the initiative. McNutt voiced her apprehensions about politicians deciding which research projects get funding, what scientific gatherings researchers can attend, and where scientific findings may be published. She pointed out the possible additional administrative load on researchers, mandating more disclosures related to conflicts of interest, further justification for payments, and disclosures regarding foreign affiliations.
The initiative from Office of Management and Budget’s director, Russell Vought, mandates that political appointees must authorize research grants prior to funding and permits the cancellation of ongoing research if it is viewed as inconsistent with program objectives or priorities. It also prohibits foreign entities from securing grants without higher political approval and restricts funding for conference attendance without prior consent.
The response has been prompt. At an Emergency Science Meeting organized by Stand Up for Science, Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi criticized the initiative, likening it to a ‘five-alarm fire’ and calling for civic engagement from scientists. The gathering saw participation from over 2000 concerned individuals.
Sudip Parikh, CEO of the Association for the Advancement of American Science, denounced the initiative as a power grab that contradicts Congressional and public sentiments. He remarked that this regulation, if put into effect, could obstruct future scientific advancements crucial for public health, national security, and economic growth.
Additionally, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology raised alarms regarding the extensive and swift changes, advocating for evidence-based and community-participatory restructuring of US scientific infrastructure.
The public comment window for the initiative is open until 13th July, with numerous comments already submitted, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction. Stand Up for Science and other organizations caution against executive overreach, referencing prior controversial directives that threatened to confine scientific research strictly to administration agendas.
As the scientific community persists in expressing its concerns, this initiative underscores the ongoing conflict between scientific integrity and political control in federal research funding.