Stand Up For Science

I hope that you all had a Glorious Fourth.

I suppose that I have been remiss, but I just heard a couple of days ago about a comprehensive proposal to politicize grants in science and allied subjects, which would amount to kneecapping American scientists. Unfortunately, comments on the proposal are due by July 13th (only 45 days were provided originally for comments; the usual period is 60, or more). Even those of us who are not scientists (the Curmudgeon flunked high school chemistry) can see that this is an issue of the first order. The size of the federal government, and the amount of money it spends on science in one form or another, make the availability of federal grants essential in almost all fields. (Perhaps we need to find ways to change that, but that is a matter for another day.)

The very lengthy (and obscure) proposed regulation is here.

As the Stand Up for Science Foundation notes, the proposal would:

—Place political appointees in position to approve or veto grant proposals, largely supplanting peer review panels.

—Require that grants “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” That would include prohibiting “denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic” in addition to “initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.” (Who needs science when we have theology?)

—Permit the termination of grants when they no longer align with “agency priorities” or current administration policy. In the past, grants could only be terminated ahead of time for pesky stuff like fraud or mismanagement. As we know, with the folks in charge now, mismanagement is tolerated, if not actively encouraged. Fraud is optional.

—Effectively ban federal support for research into racial equity, health disparities, climate effects on different ethnic, racial or even, perhaps, economic communities.

Stand Up for Science also notes that the proposed regulation seems to say that only studies that can be replicated will qualify for grants, which suggests that perhaps it was written by a college sophomore. Astronomical observations or studies of weather are not subject to replication, but then again, these are the people who cut back severely on the release of weather balloons, noticeably reducing the accuracy of forecasts.

You can find the Stand Up for Science Foundation comments on the proposal here.

Another call to action from the American Physical Society may be found here. It raises some similarly disturbing points about the proposal, and notes that OMB apparently anticipates fierce reaction to it, and recognizes implicitly that it is on shaky ground.

What can you do? You can submit a comment about the proposal. An online form is at this site. You need not be a scientist to make a comment. Comments may be learned or just express your feelings. They may be one sentence or thousands of words. What is most important is that they be made before next Monday at midnight. Doing so will be an simple, but important form of resistance to the forces trying to tear down democracy.

Another important step you can take is to alert your friends, family, social networks, etc. to the threat that the proposed regulation presents.

(If you want to paste your comment on the regulation into the comments, that may help others.)

Thank you,

—86 47—