Science Corner: Scrutiny of the Bounty

For as long as I have been aware of political goings-on, lawmakers have used scientific research in an attempt to score points about government waste. It’s a pretty easy game to play; any robust array of research funding will include some grants for high risk projects, niche studies, or ambitious moon shots. And if your audience has an implicit assumption that funding science basically amounts to buying obvious practical applications of utility to many, it’s that much easier to find projects that will fail that standard. Those who follow the history of science will know that valuable applications can come from unexpected places. And many see value in scientific knowledge beyond how it can impact day-to-day life. But not everyone has that perspective, and if you’ve already been convinced science can be wasteful, there’s even less incentive to look deeper.

Would you have thought to look at gila monster venom for diabetes medication? Would you suspect number theory held the key to global electronic commerce? Would you figure that a cure for sickle-cell anemia lurked in the antiviral response of bacteria? These are just some of the examples of life-changing technologies derived from unlikely beginnings. It is not hard to imagine that any or all of these lines of inquiry could have been cut short by requiring an upfront endpoint obvious to most lay observers. That doesn’t mean we just throw money at any old idea that anyone happens to have; these researchers had to demonstrate that they were capable of doing rigorous work and then deliver publishable results. What it does mean is that the untrained eye will likely struggle to identify fruitful research from grant titles or summaries.

If this is an old game, why bring it up now? Well, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing rule changes for how federal grants are handled. Now, instead of picking out studies to be poster children for negotiations at the level of budget allocations, even grant would be subject to political review and possible rejection on an individual basis. This is a significant change to how federal funds are handled, and as such merits careful consideration. If you are reading this when it is published, you still have a few days to add a public comment that will become part of that consideration. The deadline is July 13, 2026.

Naturally, one cannot eliminate politics from the question of how public funds are spent. And there is plenty of opportunity for political input. The legislative and executive branches work together to establish the budget, which determines how large the pools of money are for various kinds of grants. The executive branch, with confirmation from the legislative in some cases, appoints the leadership for the the various departments which administer the funds. Specific research practices or goals can be regulated or prohibited, either by law or by policy. There are state laws and federal regulations banning human cloning, for example. And all human subject research is subject to ethical guidelines to reduce the likelihood of exploitation.

One of the most significant debates about science funding in my lifetime was the conversation around research on embryonic stem cells. These cells have the potential to differentiate into many different kinds of cells which form into the various tissues and organs that make up our bodies. They represented a significant opportunity for basic science research and development of therapeutics. Before they were discovered, however, a federal law was passed banning federal funding for research that destroyed embryos. In 2001, in response to the subsequent discovery of embryonic stem cells, the Bush administration undertook a scientific and ethical review of the issues and ultimately implemented a policy permitting federal funding of research using preexisting cell lines, since this would require no further manipulation of embryos. Subsequent administrations have modified these policies, and further research has also revealed other ways of making stem cells that don’t use embryos.

As you might imagine, not everyone agreed with the specific decisions made. And certainly there was an impact on what science was done and not done. Nevertheless, this seems like a reasonable process for addressing an emerging area of research, since it involved an extended period of debate with input from multiple knowledgeable parties. While I suppose we can never know for certain what goes on in the minds of decision-makers, the process was least consistent with an informed, educated choice rather than finding a way to justify a predetermined outcome.

It is harder to see how the newly proposed process for review of individual grants can achieve the same level of depth. Reports of decisions being driven by simple keyword lists do not suggest detailed, knowledgeable review. If the concern is responsible funding, there is little reason to think a shallow or arbitrary process is going to make sure limited funds are spent in the wisest way.

Now, perhaps you are concerned that my concerns about these proposed changes are due to the fact that they come from this administration in particular. I’ll admit that’s not exactly a point in their favor; at the same time, such “if you’re for it, I’m against it” thinking is a big part of my concern. Certainly there is more to politics than that sort of knee-jerk reaction. Nevertheless, we have seen a lot of back-and-forth in executive orders and agency policies as administrations change. Scientific research requires patience and persistence, accumulating evidence, making incremental improvements, and deepening expertise. Funding that toggles on and off every 4 years is not conducive to any of that.

This proposed rule includes other changes as well. The other one that stands out to me is the limitation on using federal funds to pay for open access journal fees. Significant advances have been made in recent years to require that federally-funded research be published in a way that is accessible to the public rather than behind a paywall. In some cases, this involves pay the journal a fee to “unlock” a specific paper. If grant funds can’t be used to pay those fees, will we see fewer open access papers about the research we’ve all paid for?

Here’s the link again where you can leave a comment on the proposed rule change. I think the current system–in which lawmakers and administrators decide overall budgets, provide guidance and regulation, and set broad agendas, while scientists use their expertise to decide which individual projects merit funding as the best of the leading edge–represents a reasonable balance. I think the new rule would shift that balance too far away from the people who know the fields best, regardless of who the lawmakers and administrators are now or in the future. If you agree, feel free to let the OMB know. And if you think the rule change is a good idea, feel free to let them know that instead.