Free Beer (and No Politics) Tomorrow!
Well, we failed. After the past few months of political topics, we had hoped to write about something else—promising research results, some new fusion of technology and neurocritical care, the approaching pennant race of autumn.
However, on August 7th, President Trump’s Executive Order “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” landed in the research community with an elephantine thud of something much weightier than its few pages suggest.
No researcher will say that the federal grantmaking system is perfect. The process is burdensome and bureaucratic. The chances of success are small, particularly for lesser-well-known researchers. Indirect costs, anyone? And there is waste, primarily in unpublished results, if one looks at the system from a strict “funder as investor looking for demonstrable ROI” standpoint. Some argue this has led to risk-aversion.
We think most would welcome some changes. A few might even agree with some of the points posited in the order’s opening paragraphs. We think all would acknowledge that this imperfect system makes possible advances and sustenance in medicine and science that would otherwise be impossible. However, we doubt any would agree that the order’s proposed changes are the fix for this imperfection.
The order argues for streamlining the process and adhering to so-called “Gold Standard Science” only to insert a political bureaucrat as apex predator of the entire grant approval process. This person will have unchecked veto power over the actual scientists who have reviewed the grant for merit. This appointee also has the power to terminate grants at will for “convenience.” Whose convenience? Surely not the researcher whose continuing review reveals an inconvenient truth misaligned with “the President’s policy priorities.” It seems inevitable that this president’s mercurial priorities will, at some point, result in a phone call or “Truth” that shuts down good research. Not only does the order mandate this for new grants, but these new agency heads are directed to revise existing grants and incorporate this new termination language retroactively where possible.
The order takes yet another swipe at this administration’s favorite targets, prohibiting awards that “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” racial preferences or discrimination, a fixed-at-birth non-binary definition of sex, and illegal immigration. The final category in this clause is particularly chilling, prohibiting funding awards that “promote anti-American values”, a phrase that sends a McCarthy-shaped shiver down our spine. True “American values” are as varied as the nation itself. The arbiters of what is anti-American will not represent all of America’s values. They will likely be cut from a very particular blend of loyal, easily replaceable fabric; definitely red, suitable for the golf course, for whom science is of secondary consideration to political expediency and the whims of the guy who appointed them.
We wish we had more positive things to say this month, but this order has temporarily dented our optimism. Hopefully those with the legal standing to fight will continue to do so. Hopefully we and all of our grant-writing friends will learn how to work within these new constraints and good science leading to better health will prevail over politics. Until then, we’ll enjoy our free beer. Tomorrow.
