U.S. Presidential decree issues potential restrictions on science-related liberties under Trump's administration
The US Executive Order titled "Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking," signed by President Donald Trump, has sparked controversy by centralizing control of federal research grant decisions in political appointees rather than career scientific experts.
Under the order, political appointees are tasked with overseeing grant solicitations and reviews to ensure alignment with administration policy priorities. This shift could prioritize certain agendas and potentially exclude research on topics deemed "anti-American."
The order is criticized by scientists, research advocates, and many experts as it is seen as replacing scientific merit with ideological loyalty to the Trump administration. The change will upend the peer review process at funding agencies, causing delays and disruptions in grant availability and potential disruptions to ongoing research projects.
Agencies are ordered to pause new funding opportunities until revised grant review processes are in place, causing immediate delays in grant availability. Scientific organizations warn that this politicization could undermine evidence-based research by inserting political considerations into grant decisions, hindering scientists' ability to pursue unbiased, rigorous science.
The order cites irreproducibility of some federally funded research outcomes and alleged wasteful spending as reasons for increased oversight. However, critics argue these concerns do not justify politicizing funding decisions. The order also targets critical race theory, transgender sexual education programs, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) research as "far-left initiatives" that are an "offensive waste of tax dollars."
Funding has been cut in climate science, gender-related topics, and research on mRNA vaccine technologies. Medical associations warn that the President's ongoing assault on science is derailing the US' reputation as a scientific powerhouse and crippling vital research.
Notable scientists, such as Victor Ambros, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, have spoken out against the order, calling it "unpatriotic in the extreme." Kenneth Evans, an expert in science and technology public policy at Rice University in Texas, described the executive order as a "direct attack on scientific integrity at federal agencies."
If implemented, political appointees, not scientists, would take control over decisions about research grants. This could potentially hinder the work of the scientific community to provide solutions and fight public health threats. The order's impact on the independence and integrity of scientific research in the US is a matter of concern for many.
Read also:
- Germany's three-month tenure under Merz's administration feels significantly extended
- United Nations Human Rights Evaluation, Session 45: United Kingdom's Statement Regarding Mauritius' Human Rights Record
- Hurricane-potential storm Erin forms, poised to become the first hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean this year.
- Europe endures a sweltering heatwave, amplifying the risk of wildfires in France.
