In his January 1961 inaugural address, John F. Kennedy issued a clarion call to “invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors … [to] … eradicate disease and encourage the arts and commerce.” Donald Trump’s administration has proposed rules governing grants across all federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which, if finalized, could bomb scientific research back to the Stone Age. We needn’t mention its jaundiced approach to the arts and commerce. Scientists are on DEFCON-1. Scientific research has always had bipartisan Congressional support. Trust in science polls 75 percent across the country. Research funded in part by NIH grants has prolonged and saved lives, led to the discovery of cholesterol as a cause of heart disease the development of statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs), HIV therapies, the discovery of GLP-1 (diabetes management and weight loss), and mRNA vaccines (teaching the body to fight pathogens, like the virus that causes COVID-19). Childhood leukemia, not long ago a death sentence, is now survivable for most children. Cancer immunotherapy is extending life for many who, just a decade ago, would have died. New technology is letting us repair genetic diseases at their source. The proposed rule, recently released by Trump apparatchik, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, a key architect of Project 2025, would change how federally funded research is managed across the federal government. If finalized as written, it would superimpose a litmus test on a peer-review process that, for 80 years, has been run by scientists evaluating the work of other scientists. Peer review would remain a part of the process, but political appointees would make final decisions on grant funding. This shift threatens to erode the core principle of scientific independence that has driven American research success. [See “Trump Escalates War on Science” by Merrill Goozner on his Substack, GoozNews, and in the Washington Monthly on June 8, 2026.] The sweeping proposal would impose new binding regulations requiring that every research grant “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” Mixing scientific judgment and political preference pours oil on water and does not improve research. It undermines scientists’ freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without bureaucrats determining whether it goes left or right. Lawyers, like scientists, understand the need for a firewall between political opinions and scientific research. Scientist-led peer review is why American science remains the envy of the world. The 400-page draft… [TheTopNews] Read More.
4 days ago
