By Erica Kimmerling and Amanda Vernon
The United States has historically been at the forefront of science and technology innovation. This leadership is in large part due to decisions to build an infrastructure that allows any motivated parties to engage in a merit-based funding process. This competitive process requires a significant upfront investment of time and resources which only succeeds if the government is a reliable, transparent, and good-faith funding partner.
Instead of improving known inefficiencies and limitations within the current grantmaking system, the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule introduces new layers of bureaucracy and uncertainty in proposal review processes and raises questions about the reliability of funding to continue once awarded. It creates significant openings for bad faith actors, either in this or future Administrations, to reject rigorous proposals based on political whims.
How the draft OMB rule undermines the grantmaking process
More Opaque Processes
- Allows political appointees to use nebulous “Gold Standard Science” criteria to decide which researchers and institutions receive grants instead of scientific merit (§ 200.205 b 5-7).
- Bogs down the grantmaking process in additional layers of approvals and vague new criteria for grant evaluation.
Politicized and inefficient decision-making
- Limits grantees to working on areas that are priorities for the sitting President, instead of funding science across the breadth of questions and challenges that matter to Congress and the public (§ 200.205 (b)(1)).
- Risks prioritizing cost-cutting above key factors like the merit or potential beneficial impact of the science (§ 200.205 (b)(3)).
- Unnecessarily introduces bureaucratic paperwork to justify international collaboration (§ 200.202 (e)(2).
Wasted Resources
- Opens the door to widespread waste of materials, human capital, and other scientific resources by permitting temporary grant suspensions at any time and cancellations for political reasons (§ 200.340). Even temporary disruptions in funding can cause significant damage to scientific studies and clinical trials.
Good faith reform and improvements to the grantmaking process should be pursued, but these rule changes are too flawed to implement. We should continue to work to build a grantmaking ecosystem that is both accountable to the taxpayer and conducive to breakthrough discovery (stay tuned for more on this).
The American public values science in their daily lives — and 89% view federal STEM investment as important for economic prosperity. Given the public’s interest in maintaining a strong American scientific enterprise, there is an opportunity for bipartisan Congressional action to provide oversight on the proposed rule’s potential impacts on discovery. You can take action:
- Submit a public comment. The public comment period on the proposed rule is open until July 13. Public comments will elevate the importance of this issue to Congress and encourage action to protect Federal science. Submit a comment (one example of guidance for submitting a comment from the Union of Concerned Scientists is here).
- Reach out to your Members of Congress to ask them to conduct oversight hearings on the potential impacts of the new OMB rule and request a formal report from Government Accountability Office.
For additional analysis on other implications of this proposed rule, stay tuned.
ASTC supports our members and the entire research and development ecosystem to increase public engagement with science and technology to enhance lives and livelihoods, strengthen communities, and sustain the planet.