Trump wants to limit funding that doesn’t ‘advance’ the president’s policies
New legislation proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally change the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a major change for one scientific community. said “All will end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs throughout the government.”
Proposed in late May, the law would give political appointees unprecedented power over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specify that federal funds can only be used for projects that are “consistent with the administration’s policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed law.
The law would also limit research topics, limit the ability of US scientists to collaborate with foreign colleagues and make it easier for governments to suspend or cancel grants at any time.
These changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight of Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.
But critics say that if this law is implemented, the final signing of grants will no longer be in the hands of subject matter experts in individual institutions, but in those appointed by politicians.
“This affects every part of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who works at the Veterans Administration and the San Diego County Psychiatric Hospital.
“The control of how all government grants and programs are funded will be under the control of a small group of people who will have few restrictions on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who is also the chairman of the organization. Committee to Protect Community Mental Health advocacy group. “This affects everyone’s health, even if they don’t realize it.”
OMB published proposed legislation May 29, opens a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.
Opposition to this proposed law has included many sectors of society. Representative professional groups cancer researchers, civil engineers, regional governments, medical schools, housing agencies, the city again of the municipality governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concern about the potential consequences.
As of noon Thursday, the Federal Register had filed nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.
“I understand the need for oversight, financial responsibility, and accountability. That’s not the problem,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research should be judged on scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, rejected, or terminated according to broad political criteria that can change from one system to the next.”
At worst, the law turns the policies governing government grants from “guidelines” into binding laws that all agencies will have to follow. It will give to political appointees strength bypassing the merit-based review of federal agencies and authority that the nominee for political office review the decisions to ensure that all awards “advance the priorities of the President’s policy.”
The elevation of political appointees to what used to be popularity-based decisions has shocked many scientists.
“The proposed rule change will not eliminate the use of scientific merit in selecting grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a non-profit organization dedicated to space exploration.
Researchers and scientific groups have also expressed concern about a section of the law preventing the promotion of “ideas of disparate legal responsibility” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.
The category’s vague language and many loopholes can have a negative impact on any study that examines the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any particular population group, Rafla-Yuan said.
As an example, he said, “if there’s a certain age range that’s at high risk for suicide, and we want to find out what’s going on with 14- to 19-year-olds … we’re not going to do that under the wording of this law.”
New restrictions in collaboration with foreign scientists can block opportunities for American researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, senior government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.
“Science is a global business. Especially in the fields of health and public health, diseases do not care about borders or government policies,” he said.
A California congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking the OMB to withdraw the proposal, citing concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, US competitiveness and the financial stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.
The proposed legislation allows the federal government broad power suspending or canceling grants for any reason, introduces “unprecedented uncertainty in domestic administration,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving critical infrastructure projects unfinished and leaving vulnerable people dependent on these services.”
Republican Sen. Susan Collins still has it it asked the White House to withdraw parts of the letter and extend the period for public comment, saying the proposed legislation as written would “harm small rural communities, undermine scientific and biological research, and conflict with Congress’s control over the federal funding process.”
