The Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has outlined a sprawling set of proposed revisions to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, which could spell a massive impact for future grant recipients. Of the 400+ pages of proposals, a number imply grave concerns for the advancement of American science.

Elizabeth Ginexi, a former-NIH Program Official, has provided a summary of key changes and guidance on what actions we need to take next to combat the OMB.  Such changes include:

• The politicization of grant awards with political appointees
• Removal of peer review as binding
• Constricting collaboration with international institutions and organizations
• Denial of funding based on organization’s “affiliations”

“Since World War II,” Ginexi writes, “the United States built the world’s preeminent scientific enterprise on a straightforward principle: federal dollars should fund the best science, as determined by independent experts rather than politicians.

What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management. It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.”

So, what can we do?

Submit comments during the public comment period. The Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that OMB must respond to every significant comment before finalizing any rule. The more individual comments, the better:

• Each serve as record of opposition
• OMB is made to address each provision individually
• The volume of comments is a signal to Congress, prompting potential intervention

Submit your comments HERE by 13 July.

AAUP/AFT Higher Ed are offering a webinar 18 June to discuss the full scope of the changes and talk about best-practices for submitting comments. Register here.