A proposed Office of Management and Budget rule has sparked a fierce pushback from the scientific community, with researchers warning that it could dismantle large swaths of federally funded research and trials across the country.
The rule, proposed by OMB director Russ Vought on May 29, would shift control of all research grants away from scientific experts and toward political appointees. It requires grants to "demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities" and prohibits anything deemed to "promote anti-American values," language that has alarmed researchers.
Colette Delawalla, founder of Stand Up for Science, calls the proposal "fascism" and warns it would create "a $1.5 trillion slush fund" under executive control. She recently returned from Capitol Hill, where she met individually with more than 30 members of Congress to discuss the rule's implications.
The stakes are staggering. Stand Up for Science analyzed roughly 10,000 NIH-funded clinical trials and conservatively estimated that nearly half could be discontinued under the new rule. The discontinuations would affect over 1,000 cancer trials, hundreds of pediatric studies, and hundreds more investigating veterans' health, suicide prevention, heart disease, and diabetes.
One example haunted Delawalla: a clinical trial addressing postpartum suicidality in grieving parents would become illegal because it involves international collaboration, which the rule prohibits. "I have a two-and-a-half-year-old son at home," she told the Guardian. "I just cried."
The organization is mobilizing on multiple fronts. Stand Up for Science has encouraged public comments on the rule ahead of a July 13 federal deadline, with nearly 31,000 comments already filed. The group is also exploring potential legal challenges should the rule advance, having convened roughly 50 attorneys across the country last week to discuss strategy.
During her congressional visits, Delawalla found most lawmakers unprepared to discuss the rule's 411 pages. Only one, Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, appeared fully versed in its details. One House Democrat told her flatly that "the executive branch should have the right to cancel grants," dismissing her concerns as mere protest.
Delawalla, 32, is a clinical psychologist and researcher at Emory University in Atlanta. She founded Stand Up for Science last year to push back against what she describes as ideologically driven attacks on research. This week, Scientific American named her one of five young scientists "making waves," noting she is "showing them how to become participants in democracy."
Her arguments to Congress vary by audience. To some members, she points out the immediate national security risk: U.S. and Chinese satellites have near-misses 75 times daily, prevented only by formal collaboration between offices in both countries. If the rule passes, such coordination becomes illegal within hours, making collisions inevitable. "When you say this to certain members of Congress, they go: what?" Delawalla said.
To others, she emphasizes that federal grants fund far more than pure research. Wheelchairs for seniors, housing for veterans, and small business development all depend on the grant system. All could face elimination under the new rule.
Elizabeth Ginexi, a former NIH program officer who resigned after 22 years at the agency, describes the rule as "a multi-front assault unprecedented in my lifetime." She said Stand Up for Science is "filling a gap" left by scientists who typically stay out of politics.
Delawalla has learned that non-scientists often mobilize faster than researchers themselves. "They've never been told they need to remain apolitical," she explained. Her core message to lawmakers is straightforward: "We're advocating for democracy. If you tell people in a country they're not allowed to study certain things with federal money, you're not in a free country."
Author James Rodriguez: "The rule exposes how quickly research independence evaporates when political control replaces expert judgment, and Delawalla's fight shows that scientists may finally be learning to defend it outside the lab."
Comments