By KiddieDaily Editors · Jul 2, 2026 · 3 min read · Ages 8–10 · 1 source

Editorial: It's time to step up and have your say for science

Bias ratings based on AllSides + Ad Fontes Media. Agreement % = sources covering this story. Always read multiple sources and think critically.

If formalized, the rule would make political priorities the prime determinant of what science gets funded and sideline the opinions of scientific experts.

Grants could be canceled due to political whims, and new layers of bureaucracy would inhibit basic scientific activities like publishing papers and attending conferences. Unlike the executive orders it echoes, it would have the force of law behind it and be significantly harder to challenge in court. Before coming into force, however, the proposal must go through a process that includes public feedback and (potentially) changes in response.

The deadline for that feedback—Monday, July 13—is rapidly approaching. I’m here to explain what makes this proposal so dangerous, why your feedback matters, and how you can craft an effective submission. In Ars’ initial coverage of the OMB proposal, I identified many potential problems with the rules.

They specifically sidelined peer review as the primary meausre of scientific merit; gave political appointees the final decision on funding; allowed the government to cancel any grant at any time after it was issued; allowed decisions to be made based on vague political litmus tests like “in the national interest” and “aligned with administration policies and priorities”; and required political appointees to approve any spending for conferences or publishing. The OMB justifies these changes as an effort to “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight” and “reduce recipient burden.” Its goal, as stated in the introduction to the rules, is “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused, activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with law and policy, and recipients are held accountable when they fail to meet relevant standards.” But it’s not at all obvious why that’s the case. There’s no reason to think, for example, that decisions made by political appointees based on vague standards would be any more transparent than those made by peer reviewers based on scientific merit.

Or that the ability to cancel grants after they’ve funded part of a research project would avoid wasting American tax dollars. As I wrote at the time, these changes would cripple US-funded science. We’d enter an era in which each new administration might mean wholesale grant cancellations in line with changing priorities.

Any projects requiring long-term planning would be impossible. Using basic academic terminology would place grants at risk of rejection or termination on political grounds. Funding decisions would be made based on what one political party wanted to be true rather than on scientific merit.

While I’d like to think I have a proven history of level-headed reporting and analysis, I can understand why many would see this as an exaggeration. But I’ve read a lot of the ensuing coverage, and I think that initial appraisal holds up. And you don’t have to take my word for it.

The American Association for Cancer Research describes the OMB proposal as “a major threat to the National Institutes of Health” and criticized “the Administration’s concept of ‘Gold Standard Science,’ which is a term the Administration uses to terminate research not because it is unsound but because it does not fit a preferred political or methodological agenda.”

Think About This

What questions does this story raise for you? Talk with your family: Why does this news matter? Who is affected? What might happen next? Is there anything you can do?

🔍 Want to verify this story? Check it on Google Fact Check Explorer →

More stories: Kid News · Archive · Fact Check