Congress must stop the politicization of peer review and American science

For generations, the U.S. has led the world in scientific discovery because federal research grants are judged primarily by scientists, not by politicians. That principle is now in jeopardy.

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a government-wide regulation that would fundamentally alter how federal grants are awarded. Buried in its sweeping rewrite of federal grant rules is a directive that peer review recommendations must remain merely “advisory” and must not be “routinely deferred to” by political appointees or their designees.

Congress must not allow this rule to take effect. Any continuing resolution funding the federal government must explicitly prohibit appropriated funds from finalizing, implementing, administering or enforcing it.

This is not an obscure administrative dispute. It is a threat to the foundation of American science, which is a major driver of American economic strength.

Scientific peer review is imperfect, but it exists for an indispensable reason: Evaluating a research proposal requires deep expertise. Determining whether an experiment is rigorous, whether its methods can answer the question posed, whether its conclusions would be meaningful and whether it represents the best use of limited research dollars cannot be reduced to a political checklist.

At the National Institutes of Health, scientists with relevant expertise spend thousands of hours evaluating the significance, rigor and feasibility of competing proposals. Similar systems operate at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and other agencies. Agency leaders retain discretion to balance scientific merit with public health needs and programmatic priorities. But those decisions occur within a system where expert assessment carries real authority.

The Office of Management and Budget proposal........

© The Hill