The American status, as a global leader in science, has long been hanging on freedom with its research freedom and political intervention. On August 7, a new executive order signed by US President Donald Trump now threatened to turn the paradigm.
Executive Order, Title “Improvement in monitoring federal grant“The political appointments of the grant are all federal rights on funding funding.
If implemented, political appointments – not scientists – will control decisions about research grants. This allows political appointments to be advised by scientists on prize decisions, amidst other changes, and allows grants to go on grants based on political criteria.
Scientists and research advocates have slammed the executive order, stating that it reflects the control of Trump on scientific research and universities. He warns that it will replace scientific qualifications with ideological loyalty to the Trump administration.
Victor Ambrose, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of MicroRNA, called the order “unaware in the peak”.
,[The order is] The politicization of a shameless, full bore Soviet-style of American science has been the world’s major scientific enterprise till now. Till this administration, single overrouting priority for public funds of research has been scientific excellence. This is why our country has been so successful in giving life saving and life-rich discoveries, “Ambros said in a statement.
Trump wants political surveillance of research
In the last decade, the US Congress honored ~ $ 200 billion (€ 172 billion) in research grants every year for pursuing important research on new technologies, new technologies such as AI and life-saving drugs.
US-based researchers have applied for research grants from federal CIACE agencies like National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institute of Health (NIH).
Are scientists honored with grant that they have depended on the independent colleague review. Panels of experts evaluate research proposals based on evidence, functioning and possible impact.
The executive order of August 7 changes. Peer review from scientific experts is now put in the hands of political appointments only the decisions making only advisory-final grant. Those appointments may refuse to fund new grants that do not align with Donald Trump’s political agenda.
,[Funding] The award, where applied, pursue the President’s policy priorities, “Paper States.
The order cites important race principles, transgender sex education programs and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) research, which is as “far-off initiatives” which are “aggressive waste of dollars”.
Trump is making us ‘a hostile place for researchers’
This executive order is the latest attack on scientific research and American universities by the Trump administration.
Jeremy Berg, former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at NIH and member of the Stand Up for Science Advisory Board, said in a statement, “Most of this executive order is dedicated to misinformation.”
Trump freeze all American federal science funding in February and cut top science roles in NASA.
Hence research has been cut on climate science, gender-related subjects and possible life-saving MRNA vaccine technology.
Kenneth Evans, an expert at Science and Technology Public Policy at Rice University in Texas, told DW in February that the Trump administration made the US “a hostile place for researchers”.
What does this mean for American research integrity?
Medical associations have warned that the President’s prestige as a scientific power plant in the ongoing attack on science and is crippling significant research.
Stephano Burtuzi, CEO of American Society for Microbiology, said, “The scientific community will further disrupt the work of the grant to provide a review solution by political appointments and fight the public health threat.”
Burtuzi said in a statement, “With a strong and responsible inspection, we do not need to suppress all the approach and approach in an attempt to solve these problems.”
Given that the executive order is a strong criticism, it will definitely face a legal challenge. Opponents are likely to argue that this order violates safety measures designed to keep scientific research free from political inspection.
Science advocates are hoping that the Congress will work to block or modify its commission, as it had done Protect NIH’s federal budget in August,
Edited by: Deric Williams
