New Rules Could Cripple US Science by Removing Peer Review

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order designed to change how the US government handles grant funding. This funding system is critical because it helped make the United States a global leader in scientific research. For decades, the process has relied on peer review. This means that other scientists evaluate applications to determine if the proposed work is high-quality and feasible. Subject-matter experts within funding agencies then use these ratings to decide which projects receive money. This system has generally prioritized scientific merit over politics.

The proposed rules, however, would dismantle this tradition. Under the new system, political appointees would have the final authority. These officials would be specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers. Essentially, the decisions would move from experts in the field to government officials who may lack specific scientific knowledge. This shift represents a fundamental change in how public money supports innovation.

In the interim period, the administration has lost several court cases. Courts ruled that executive orders cannot bypass existing legal requirements. If an order lacks strong justification, it can be vacated. To avoid this fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has chosen a different path. Instead of relying solely on an executive order, the OMB merged the proposal with other administration priorities. They are now sending it through the formal federal rulemaking process. This process is more complex but legally more secure.

The result is a set of proposed rules that poses a severe threat to US science research. The new regulations not only demote peer review but also grant agencies broad powers to cancel grants. Agencies could terminate funding at any time based on the vague assertion that a project is no longer in the "national interest." Additionally, the document bans grants for various "culture war" topics. It also limits international collaborations and restricts spending on essential activities, such as publishing research papers and attending academic conferences.