By Kritika Agarwal
On August 7, President Trump issued an executive order that greatly weakens merit-based processes for reviewing applications for federal research funding by transferring final decision-making authority from scientific experts to political appointees. AAU opposes the order.
The White House stated that the purpose of the order, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” is “to strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking.”
In a fact sheet, the White House said that the new executive order is designed to stop “unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous grants.” Instead, federal grant applications will now undergo evaluation by political appointees “to ensure they benefit the American public … [and] align with Administration priorities.”
Among other things, the executive order:
- Requires agency heads to designate a senior appointee who will create a process to review new funding opportunities and awards to ensure that “they are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.” Appointees and their designees will review all discretionary grants to ensure that they are not used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” “racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination;” denial of the “sex binary in humans;” “illegal immigration;” or “initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.”
- Requires agencies to give preference for discretionary awards “to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.”
- Requires agencies to issue grants to a broader range of recipients “likely to produce immediately demonstrable results and recipients with the potential for potentially longer-term, breakthrough results.”
- Requires agencies to “prioritize an institution’s commitment to rigorous, reproducible scholarship over its historical reputation or perceived prestige” and to prioritize institutions “that have demonstrated success in implementing Gold Standard Science.”
- Requires the Office of Management and Budget director and agency heads to take regulatory and administrative steps to permit termination of existing or future awards “for convenience.”
- Requires the OMB director to revise federal guidance “to appropriately limit the use of discretionary grant funds for costs related to facilities and administration.”
- Requires agency heads to insert terms and conditions in future grant agreements that would require grantees to justify award drawdowns and prohibit the drawdown of general grant funds without affirmative agency authorization.
Typically, program officers at federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation collaborate with top scientists and subject-matter experts to review federal research grant applications in a process that is designed to be nonpartisan, independent, and confidential. The new executive order replaces the current system for awarding research based on peer review and merit with one that would allow politics and ideology to influence the final outcome.
Additionally, the order recommends that agencies prioritize awarding grants to institutions with lower indirect costs. This would mean that, rather than funding the best scientific proposals based on merit, federal agencies will now consider which institutions can conduct scientific research at the lowest cost. This will result in the funding of the cheapest science as opposed to the best science.
AAU President Barbara R. Snyder said in a statement that the federal government must “continue to support science-based, merit-based decision making in the awarding of precious federal research dollars” in order for our nation to “maintain our world-leading position in science and innovation.”
The executive order “would add a new and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that will diminish the role of quality and excellence in science while simultaneously adding delay to the process of evaluating and awarding grant proposals,” she said.
Overall, the order inserts layers of bureaucracy that will create unnecessary delays in funding research, including lifesaving clinical trials. It also creates significant uncertainty for grantees and institutions because it allows political appointees to terminate grants after they have been awarded “for convenience.”
American taxpayers deserve assurances that the best and highest-impact scientific projects – rather than those that advance a particular political agenda – will receive federal support. It is critical that the merit review process remains competitive and free of political bias and interference.
Kritika Agarwal is assistant vice president for communications at AAU.