🧵 Public science in the US has taken some heavy hits over the last year, but the White House OMB is proposing a series of changes that will result in a TKO for science as we know it unless we fight back. Here's what's happening, and why it matters. 1/n This is coming from the Office of Management and Budget, which "serves the President of the United States in overseeing the implementation of his vision across the Executive Branch." Their proposal would give political appointees a formal role in reviewing and approving research grants. 2/n Historically, when scientists submit grants to federal agencies like NSF or NIH, funding decisions have relied heavily on expert peer review and the leadership of career civil servants drawn from the scientific community. This process is often called a "gold star" system, led by expert peers. 3/n The biggest and most disruptive change proposed by the OMB would be to require senior political appointees to review every grant before it is awarded, blocking awards that “promote anti-American values," challenge binary views of sex, or otherwise don't align with the administration's values. 4/n This rule also requires that grants must “...demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” All of this effectively puts politics over expertise, giving political appointees veto power over research that challenges, conflicts with, or doesn't follow the administration’s ideologies. 5/n Under the proposed rules, peer review will be advisory only; proposals will be required to align with "Gold Standard Science" which is never explicitly defined. Peer review is the foundation of our entire federal funding system, dating back to the establishment of federal agencies after WWII. 6/n Another significant change is the ability to terminate grants if they determine a project no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest. Grants typically run 3-5 years, so losing funds would be extremely disruptive, canceling in-progress research, personnel funding, etc. 7/n Imagine moving across the country to do a PhD, only to lose funding. Imagine making a commitment to a tribal nation, nonprofit, or business, and being unable to deliver. Meanwhile, the already spent funds would basically be flushed down the toilet. That's what this would mean. 8/n Applicants can be denied if they are affiliated with organizations that “advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government” or “undermine public safety or national security.” Given how this has been defined thus far, this could include mainstream environmental or justice organizations. 9/n The new rules would also require that the budgeting for conferences is only allowable if participation is approved by the agency and included in the award when it is made. In other words, you have to specify the conferences you want to attend when you apply, and those must be pre-approved. 10/n (Right now, you can include funding for "conference attendance" without listing them in advance or having them be approved. Under the new rules, you would not be able to attend a conference you didn't know existed when you applied for the grant.) 11/n An especially disruptive change would be the elimination of publication costs. The move towards open access publishing--based on the idea that if the public pays for it, they should be able to read it--has resulted in skyrocketing up-front costs of $4000-$6000 or more per paper. 12/n Overall, the OMB appears to be signaling that they don't want the public having access to federally funded science at all; under the proposed rules, "public relations costs" would not be allowable, which would limit scientists' ability to communicate our findings to the public. 13/n If you'd like to read about the proposed changes in detail, check out @elizabethginexi.bsky.social's summary (apologies for posting Russel Vought's face on your timeline): elizabethginexi.substack.com
elizabethginexi.substack.com
Our federal science funding agencies were designed to support science that is vetted and driven by scientists with a Congressional mandate to be for the public good. The OMB's proposed changes would replace that system with one driven by partisan cronies and special interests. 15/n Now, for the "good" news: these are still proposed changes! They have not yet gone into effect. The public comment period is now open, and will run through July 13. You can file a comment about this proposed rule changes here: regulations.gov
www.regulations.gov
If you are a member of a scientific or educational society, please contact them and ask them what they are doing to fight this. They should be releasing statements, calls to action, explainers, talking points, or drafting letters for their members to sign. Because much of what the OMB is proposing is illegal, Congress needs to know about it. Yes, even the conservative ones you think don't care-- they know how much their states benefit from federal science funding, and I promise you, they do in fact care. Contact them!
5calls.org
Write an op ed urging your Congresspeople to stand up for public science and oppose the OMB's proposed rule changes. An effective letter might cite the ways publicly funded research has benefitted your community; your state university news page can tell you what they've been up to if you're stuck. Science is for everyone! You don't have to be an expert; don't worry about finding the right words. Just speak from the heart. And if you feel despair, remember why we fight. The trees, the birds, the axolotls, the musk ox, the air and the water; they don't get a say. So we have to speak for them. Here’s a helpful guide if you’d like to see an example of what a public comment to OMB looks like: bsky.app
Several people have asked for possible content and structure for comments regarding the proposed OMB regulations. With some suggestions from others, I have posted on example (as a Word document) for downloading). jeremymberg.github.io I hope this is helpful.
jeremymberg.github.io