The U.S. Senate is emerging as a potential bulwark against proposed rule changes that would give government bureaucrats more control over scientific funding.
A draft agreement to fund the government through December 11 that was released on Sunday would extend the current system for the disbursement of science-related grants, such as those awarded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other governmental agencies. If this continuing resolution were to pass, it would effectively stall the Office of Budget Management’s (OMB’s) proposed rule changes from coming into effect until at least that date. It would not prevent them from ever taking hold, however.
Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations and a Democrat, warned in a statement that “while the bill temporarily blocks the proposed OMB rule, the fight must continue.”
“The Senate bill forces OMB to continue reviewing the half-million comments that were submitted, but Congress must permanently prevent this corrupt, harmful power grab before the new deadline of December 11,” she said.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The OMB’s proposed changes would give political appointees, rather than the current system of panels of independent peer reviewers, the power to review and decide which research grants get funding from federal agencies.
Scientists rushed to condemn the proposal during the public comment period, which closed on July 13. Critics included several Nobel laureates, who warned it would politicize the scientific process and greatly damage U.S. scientific advancement.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and a Republican, said in a separate statement that she was “pleased” that the changes would not take effect under the resolution. “I advocated for significant changes to the proposed rule in a July 6 letter to the agency, citing its potential to politicize grants and harm small, rural communities, families, and biomedical research,” she said.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
