The principle that scientific research should be funded based on quality, merit and potential benefit to society — not on partisan ideology — is under threat by new rules being proposed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Last week (May 29), the administration announced proposed rules for federal funding to centralize federal grant decision-making under OMB. At its core, the new proposed rules would give political appointees responsibility for final approval of federal grants, including those from major science funding agencies under the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Science Foundation.
This change would undermine our current merit-based system in which non-political expert review committees grade the quality, methodology and innovative potential of the work proposed in grant applications.
Recent stories in Scientific American and National Public Radio shed further light on the issues raised.
This proposed rule comes on the heels of last year’s efforts by the Administration to limit federal reimbursement of so-called indirect costs — essentially, the operational costs of doing research. Congressional leaders turned back efforts to apply those indirect cost changes, which would have damaged the ability of research organizations (like Morgridge and UW–Madison) to do the work that modern science requires.
Once again, we will need the leadership of Congress to stand against this current attempt to politicize American science.
The good news is that there is time to respond — and that your voice matters.
The proposal was added to the Federal Register on Friday, May 29, triggering a 45-day public comment period. If you would like to provide a comment on the proposed rules, you can visit this public comment page on the official government website. Please note that the deadline for responding is July 13, 2026.
The most effective response is to say, in your own words, why you are concerned about this rule and refer to specific parts of the rule that are problematic. You can choose to remain anonymous in your response.
In addition, we would encourage you to call or write to your congressional delegation to register your concerns. You can find your representatives here.
Here at Morgridge, we strongly believe that independent peer review has served American science well for more than 70 years and created the environment for discoveries that have improved our quality of life. Creating political litmus tests from either the left or right will hurt scientific performance and will severely obstruct the benefits society has come to expect from scientific research.
While our current system isn’t perfect, it helps ensure that merit and expert analysis remain the prime considerations for reviewing grants. This is already a highly competitive environment, where today only a small fraction of proposals receive support.
I hope that you can take the time to make your voice heard on this essential topic.
Thank you,
Brad Schwartz, CEO
Morgridge Institute for Research