A New Rule Could Let Politicians Control Medical Research. Scientists Are Pushing Back.

The federal government has proposed a new rule that could change how money is given to scientists for medical research. The rule would allow political appointees — people chosen for government jobs based on politics — to have more say over which research projects get funded. Scientists, doctors, and other health professionals are strongly opposed to the idea, calling it 'catastrophic,' 'devastating,' and 'stupid.'

In late May, the Office of Management and Budget released a plan meant to control a large amount of government money. The goal, according to officials, is to 'advance the President's policy priorities.' But researchers say the plan would move decision-making power away from experts and toward politicians.

Right now, a process called peer review helps decide which science projects get funding. In peer review, other experts in the same field read and judge a researcher's work. This system has helped direct billions of dollars from the National Institutes of Health, or N.I.H., toward the most promising research for decades. The new rule would weaken that system by allowing political appointees to overrule or ignore expert reviewers.

Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, explained why peer review matters so much. Without it, he said, 'science could become a pork-barrel project where you give money to people because of who they are or where they are, rather than the quality of what they do.' His journal published an editorial in June speaking out against the proposal.

Nearly 100,000 people submitted comments about the rule before a July 13 deadline. A New York Times analysis used artificial intelligence to sort through 50,000 publicly posted comments. The large majority of those comments criticized the proposal, and many said they were worried that political appointees would replace scientists as the main decision-makers for research funding.

One commenter who said she was a nurse compared the proposed rule to 'trusting your car mechanic to perform your open-heart surgery.' Another major concern is a part of the rule that would allow appointees to stop grants at any time. A scientist working on a five-year project to develop a vaccine for chlamydia said this could end his team's research even though they have already found a promising vaccine candidate.

Dr. Douglas Hawkins is a children's cancer doctor who leads a large research network called the Children's Oncology Group. He said stopping grants in the middle of a project would waste money and could hurt patients. 'Imagine your child has cancer, and they're being treated and they've improved, and they're getting treatment that may only be available through a clinical trial,' he said. 'And then the treatment stops.'

The proposed rule would also ban federal funding for research that looks at how race or sex affects health outcomes. The Denver Research Institute, which supports studies involving veterans, said this would hurt important work on P.T.S.D., suicide prevention, and women's health. A researcher in Alaska added that studying how social and cultural factors affect health 'is not a political position. It is responsible science.'

Not everyone is against the rule. Some supporters say the changes would stop waste and make the grant process more trustworthy. 'These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds,' some comments said. Dr. Ned Sharpless, a former head of the National Cancer Institute, noted that it could take at least a year for the government to finalize the rule, and if passed, it will likely face a court challenge.