Despite a massive effort by the US research and research advocacy communities to counter a controversial rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the end of May, it appears to be headed for implementation on 1 October. If enacted, the regulation would give political appointees the power to determine federal research grant awards and control over whether researchers can use funds for conferences and publishing costs, as well as introducing restrictions on international collaborations.
The public comment period for the proposal remains open until 13 July and so far more than 70,000 comments have been received.
The groundswell of concern has prompted researchers and scientific organisations like the American Chemical Society (ACS) to request a 45-day extension of the comment period so the White House can receive more responses. However, during a House Appropriations Committee Oversight hearing on 30 June, OMB Director Russell Vought said he will not grant the extension.
In the hearing, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, criticised the proposed rule as seeking to put federal research funding at ‘the whims of the President’s policy priorities’ and substitute ‘the current standard of evidence in science in favour of political tests based on ideology’. Vought responded that DeLauro and others were ‘misconstruing’ the proposed rule. ‘OMB will not be making these [grant funding] determinations; we don’t have a formal [role] in reviewing every [Notice of Funding Opportunity],’ he added. ‘That is not something we intend to take on.’
But DeLauro pointed out that the proposed rule requires that senior political appointees, rather than career scientists and programme officers, conduct a ‘pre-issuance review’ of every discretionary grant before it is awarded and forbids them from deferring to the peer review process.
Active clinical trials could be defunded
In its comments to OMB on the proposed rule, the ACS expresses concern about changes it would implement related to scientific publication costs, participation and memberships, warning that the dissemination of federally funded research and scientific collaboration could be affected. ‘Other provisions involving merit review, program alignment, and eligibility criteria may require careful evaluation of potential impacts on research funding, partnerships, and workforce development,’ the organisation adds.
Clinical trials currently funded by the National Institutes of Health and other US federal agencies might also be ineligible for funding under the new rule. An analysis of the proposal’s impact released by the nonprofit Stand Up for Science examined over 10,000 active clinical research studies and estimates that its stipulations on international collaborations and policy alignment would mean almost half of these trials could be ineligible for funding.
‘All future clinical trials would be at risk of cancellation under the proposal, as the rule would put political appointees in charge of funding decisions and give them the ability to cancel funding at any time,’ the organisation’s report concludes.
Meanwhile, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has already released proposed amendments to its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) based on the OMB’s proposed rule that would significantly change to how federal research grants are awarded.
The top Democrat on the House Science, Technology and Space Committee Zoe Lofgren sent a letter to NSF’s acting director Brian Stone on 29 June demanding that NSF rescind these proposed PAPPG amendments.
‘NSF jumping the gun and issuing proposed PAPPG amendments before the OMB rule is finalized – let alone before the public comment period has concluded – is a clear sign that the Administration in general, and NSF specifically, have no interest in legitimately considering the input of the impacted community,’ Lofgren wrote. ‘The only acceptable course of action at this point is to rescind the draft guidance.’
