How Trump’s New Order Empowers Political Appointees to Control Research Grants: What You Need to Know

US President Donald Trump recently issued a significant executive order (EO) that is likely to change how federal research grants are handled. This new directive shifts grant-making power away from career scientists and civil servants to political appointees. Instead of neutral experts, these appointees will guide decisions on funding research that supports Trump’s policy goals.

The order, titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” requires agency heads to appoint someone to develop a new grant-review process. This process is meant to prioritize projects that align with the President’s vision for “gold-standard science.” Critics argue that this approach risks increasing political interference in research, potentially stifling scientific inquiry.

According to a report by the National Science Foundation, about $200 billion is spent annually on scientific research in the U.S. Opposition to the EO has been vocal. Many scientists believe that inserting politics into research funding could hinder innovation and academic freedom. Casey Dreier, a director at the Planetary Society, described it as “a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry.” Similarly, Jeremy Berg, a former NIH director, labeled it a “power grab.”

Experts warn about the immediate impacts of this new order. Federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have been told to halt new funding announcements until the new processes are in place. This could delay vital research projects, including those related to health and technology.

Social media reactions reflect the frustration in the scientific community. Many users are concerned that political agendas may now dictate research priorities, potentially sidelining crucial areas like climate science, public health, and social equity initiatives.

Interestingly, similar moves have been made historically. Past administrations have also attempted to exert more control over scientific research. However, this level of centralization is unprecedented and raises questions about the balance between politics and science.

In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of Congress, criticized the EO for potentially placing hurdles between patients and groundbreaking treatments. She emphasized the potential risks to public health and advancing medical research.

As discussions around science and politics continue to evolve, navigating this landscape will be challenging. For more insights on the impact of government actions on scientific independence, you can read about the ongoing debates in major outlets like Nature and recent opinions found in discussions of public policy.

Source link

Funding,Politics,Research management,Science,Humanities and Social Sciences,multidisciplinary