What a Trump order to put political appointees in charge of NIH funding would mean for science

Overview: What a Trump order to put political appointees in charge of NIH funding would mean for science Advocates and scientists warn that giving political appointees power over research grants could undermine U.S. science leadership, according to Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Key Points: - What a Trump order to put political appointees in charge of NIH funding would mean for science Advocates and scientists warn that giving political appointees power over research grants could undermine U.S. science leadership, according to Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. The New York Times and Politico reported Trump’s plans for a committee to oversee scientific grants issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which has a $40 billion budget. The proposed oversight would include OMB Director Russell Vought and NIH head Jay Bhattacharya. Critics argue this could introduce ideological biases into peer review processes, potentially stifling innovation and research on topics like cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, or climate change. Historically, grants have been reviewed by independent experts through a gold-standard process of peer review. The move would impact the allocation of federal funds for biomedical research.

Summary: What a Trump order to put political appointees in charge of NIH funding would mean for science Advocates and scientists warn that giving political appointees power over research grants could undermine U.S. science leadership, according to Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.