The American Chemical Society is calling on the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to heavily revise or rescind a proposed rule on grant administration that scientific societies, advocacy groups, and others say will fundamentally and negatively disrupt how research is funded in the US.
The 400-page proposal, first announced May 29, would require political appointees to review and approve all funding prior to it being awarded, restrict funds for researchers collaborating with scientists in foreign countries deemed as adversaries, and give funding agencies the ability to terminate any grant at any time at their discretion.
In comments filed July 9, ACS, which publishes C&EN, says that these and several other provisions in the OMB proposal “would shift funding decisions away from merit-based review, restrict lawful scientific collaboration, impede dissemination of research findings, and introduce unnecessary uncertainty into grant administration.” The society also notes that a number of provisions are “broadly framed and poorly defined,” which would lead to “inconsistent interpretation and implementation across agencies.”
In the proposed regulation, the OMB says that the changes “reflect the administration’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and proper oversight for the Federal grantmaking process.” More recently, in a July 13 email to C&EN, an OMB spokesperson writes that federal grants had been politicized under the Joe Biden administration. “That ends now,” they write.
Alongside submitting its own comment, ACS has been encouraging its members to share their concerns with the OMB during the proposal’s comment period, which ended just before midnight on July 13. Through Act4Chemistry, ACS’s legislative network, the society set up a form that allowed users to submit their comments directly to the proposed rule’s federal docket.
According to the campaign’s website, 928 members of the community submitted their comments through the form.
The ACS isn’t the only scientific society that has spoken out against the OMB proposal. In its own comment submitted July 8, the American Physical Society (APS), brought up similar concerns. “Individually, each of these changes, if implemented, will negatively impact our nation’s scientific ecosystem. Taken together, they will jeopardize our global leadership, economic competitiveness, and national security,” the APS writes.
In partnership with 36 other professional societies, the APS also set up its own website to allow members of its community to comment. More than 4,700 unique comments were submitted through the site, making it “the largest public comment effort APS has organized in response to a proposed rule during this administration,” APS CEO Jonathan A. Bagger tells C&EN in an email.
Now that the comment period is over, professional societies like the APS are turning their attention to Congress and the courts. “Our commitment is to a federal system decided by merit, no matter who is in office,” Bagger says. “If a court challenge arises that is appropriate for APS to weigh in on, we are prepared to lead a multi-society amicus brief.”
Meanwhile, other scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science have put out detailed summaries of key issues within the proposal to keep the scientific community informed. The science advocacy group Stand Up for Science also held a rally on the final day of the comment period to “sustain and expand public pressure against the OMB’s proposed rule.”
By the time the comment period ended, the OMB proposal had accumulated over 340,000 comments.
