Yesterday’s blog post highlighted how the current policies are leading to a brain drain, undermining economic advangages and harming our ability to improve outcomes for patients.
Today’s post summarizes a recent editorial by the NEJM editors (NEJM 2026; 395: 187-188. The OMB and the Politicization of Science) that drills down on three specific proposals by the OMD to change research policy.
An excerpt:
“For decades, the Soviet Union promoted the unorthodox views of Trofim Lysenko, an agronomist who used his close ties to the political leadership to spread misinformation denying Mendelian genetics. What followed was a disaster: many years of poor harvests based on unsupported science and suppression of the teaching and practice of modern genetics throughout the Soviet bloc. A similar threat now hangs over U.S. science…
The rule changes that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently proposed to the Health and Human Services (HHS) grant process would drastically change this process. There are too many objectionable aspects of these proposals to discuss here. But three are particularly striking. Political appointees would be able to make funding decisions and could ignore the advice of independent scientists. They could also stop funding midway through the promised grant period. And they would institute new rules, including rules severely limiting foreign interactions…
Expert, independent peer review of grant applications is essential for directing NIH dollars to research that has the greatest potential for advancing science and improving health. Selecting the most promising research is an enormously complex and challenging undertaking…
The OMB proposal to permit political appointees to discontinue funding of ongoing grants at any time, without cause, would have serious adverse consequences for the research enterprise and for patients…the gold standard of evidence is the randomized, controlled trial (RCT). The RCT’s methods minimize the influence of bias and preconceived notions. However, this type of trial often takes years to conduct…If a decision to stop funding the trial occurred at year 4 for political rather than scientific reasons, what would happen to patients who were enrolled in the study at that time? How would longer-term safety and efficacy observations be made?…Can physician–investigators ethically enroll a patient in a trial if ongoing funding for the trial is uncertain?
There would be substantial adverse effects on researchers as well as patients. Why would a basic science investigator start a line of investigation that might take years to complete if the funding for it could be cut at any moment, without cause?…A corrosive consequence of such an arbitrary funding process would be the diminishment of the U.S. workforce of clinical and basic science investigators — and it would ultimately harm biomedical innovation and cutting-edge patient care…
The proposed rules would also severely limit foreign research partnerships, requiring political approval of international collaborations…Broad global collaboration has led to…studies [which] can be completed years earlier than they would be otherwise, at a fraction of the cost, bringing earlier and greater benefits to all affected people, including people in the United States. Aren’t we better off addressing Ebola, tuberculosis, or screwworm before they spread to additional communities?”
My take: Allowing politicians to arbitrarily choose which research to fund rather than those with the greatest merit will lead to a poor harvest of scientific advances for all of us. This would, however, enable a select few to benefit from their corrupt connections to steer more money into their greedy pockets.
gutsandgrowth 