Trump Administration Changes Funding Approach for Biomedical Research
The recent policy shift imposed by the Trump administration signifies a stark departure from tradition. Instead of counting on scientists to allocate funding from the world’s largest biomedical research sponsor – the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that is operated by the federal government, they will now rely on political appointees’ decisions. Through an executive directive, President Donald Trump has conferred on these political executives the authority to abruptly rescind any federal grants, encompassing scientific ventures, that they deem inconsistent with agency priorities.
The executive order urges top officials to refrain from categorically yielding to advice from peer reviewers – who have been anchoring federal science funding since the last eight decades. It suggests that political considerations can supersede the scoring system furnished by outside experts who are part of numerous review committees.
The implications of diminishing the emphasis on the peer review process at NIH could be profound. Now that key positions are occupied by political appointees, they have the power to halt grants that would conventionally receive funding. Additionally, they can opt to finance grants not meeting stringent scientific criteria if these align with their preferences.
The rationale provided for this shift is that it would ‘secure consistent, transparent, and strategic funding decisions concordant with the department’s mission’. It also aims to enhance public health impacts and ensure the judicious allocation of taxpayer resources. Consequently, the majority of the grants will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by senior NIH personnel.
The responsibility now falls on the NIH staff, who must meticulously scan all grant petitions for wording that could invite attention from their superiors. Fears are also emerging that the peer review process is beginning to crumble, with highly-ranked grants sometimes being declined funding for unclear reasons.
A sense of disillusionment may be permeating the ranks of grant reviewers. As applications slowly make their way through the system, these reviewers increasingly feel that their efforts are inconsequential.
The imposition of unwarranted cancellations by the government of an approved grant can spark doubts among the scientific community. The traditional good-faith assurance that the system would work in the best interest of science may be fading as this new policy takes effect.
There’s an undercurrent of mistrust regarding the skepticism with which the administration views the peer-review process. This doubt was already brewing among the NIH scientists due to perceived unreasonable criticism against mRNA vaccines and other related issues.
According to the executive directive, the traditional evaluation process of grants ‘acts against the interests of American taxpayers’. It argues that many worthy proposals remain unsupported, while there’s excess funding for research of debatable societal benefit which is not sharply focused.