This isn't just another policy change — it’s potentially the biggest threat to US science funding in decades, and you can do something before Monday. The OMB proposed rule would replace peer review with political litmus tests like "national interest" and give appointees final authority over grant approvals and even basic research activities like attending conferences or publishing papers. If this becomes law — and it's a formal regulation, so much harder to challenge than an executive order — every new administration could dismantle years of ongoing work overnight by simply changing priorities. No one should fund science based on what one party wants to be true rather than on scientific merit, yet that is exactly what these proposed changes would codify into federal law for decades to come.
The damage isn't theoretical; medical organizations are already sounding alarms about how this will directly kill clinical trials and slow cancer research. The American Association for Cancer Research calls the "Gold Standard Science" rhetoric a shell game used to shut down work that doesn't fit an administration’s agenda, while Shane Jacobson of the American Cancer Society warns that constant policy cycles make long-term medical planning impossible. Even the public health community is worried: Nancy Brown at the American Heart Association says removing independent expertise undermines everything we need to meet current and future challenges. These aren't abstract concerns — they are about how many patients will lose out on treatments because their doctor’s research grant was canceled overnight by a political appointee who didn't understand it.
Geophysicists, physicists, and every other researcher is calling this what it is: the weaponization of government language for political gatekeeping. The American Geophysical Union says "scientific rigor" has become a screen for politicians to pick winners and losers in their own backyard. The American Physical Society warns that restricting travel and collaboration harms not just current researchers but entire generations of students being trained today, while Sudip Parikh at the Association for the Advancement of Science calls it what it is — a brazen power grab by one bureaucrat. You have until Monday, July 13, to submit public feedback on this proposal before it's formalized into law, and even five minutes of your time matters. Write a short letter using the email template at the bottom of the article to let them know you care about science being funded by merit rather than by political preference — I’ll link the full thing below if you want all the details or want to send your own submission.
Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/07/editorial-the-most-important-thing-you-can-do-to-protect-science
The damage isn't theoretical; medical organizations are already sounding alarms about how this will directly kill clinical trials and slow cancer research. The American Association for Cancer Research calls the "Gold Standard Science" rhetoric a shell game used to shut down work that doesn't fit an administration’s agenda, while Shane Jacobson of the American Cancer Society warns that constant policy cycles make long-term medical planning impossible. Even the public health community is worried: Nancy Brown at the American Heart Association says removing independent expertise undermines everything we need to meet current and future challenges. These aren't abstract concerns — they are about how many patients will lose out on treatments because their doctor’s research grant was canceled overnight by a political appointee who didn't understand it.
Geophysicists, physicists, and every other researcher is calling this what it is: the weaponization of government language for political gatekeeping. The American Geophysical Union says "scientific rigor" has become a screen for politicians to pick winners and losers in their own backyard. The American Physical Society warns that restricting travel and collaboration harms not just current researchers but entire generations of students being trained today, while Sudip Parikh at the Association for the Advancement of Science calls it what it is — a brazen power grab by one bureaucrat. You have until Monday, July 13, to submit public feedback on this proposal before it's formalized into law, and even five minutes of your time matters. Write a short letter using the email template at the bottom of the article to let them know you care about science being funded by merit rather than by political preference — I’ll link the full thing below if you want all the details or want to send your own submission.
Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/07/editorial-the-most-important-thing-you-can-do-to-protect-science