Proposed grant rules draw warning from space research advocates
The Planetary Society says an OMB proposal could put political officials between scientists and federal research grants.
By Hana Yoshida · Markets Reporter
3 min read
A proposed Office of Management and Budget rule is drawing unusually heavy public opposition and a warning from space research advocates. The Planetary Society says the Trump administration proposal could give political appointees broad control over federal science grants, including grants used to study NASA data.
The Verge reported that federal grants fund work such as research on Martian organic compounds and observations of early galaxies. The concern from The Planetary Society is that the rule would affect not only budgets, but the process by which scientists win funding, publish results and collaborate.
According to the OMB docket, the proposal had received more than 54,000 public comments. The New York Times reported that the large majority appeared to oppose the rule; The Verge noted that a typical OMB proposed rule often draws fewer than 100 comments.
The Planetary Society, a nonprofit space advocacy group, submitted a formal response criticizing several parts of the proposal. The group objected to limits affecting publication, a shift away from peer review and the potential for scientists to avoid certain work because of political risk, according to The Verge.
Casey Dreier, The Planetary Society’s chief of space policy, told The Verge that nearly every major part of the proposed changes would damage how science is done. He singled out limits on using grant money for open-access publication, saying that restriction would make publicly funded research harder for taxpayers to read.
NASA has spent more than a decade emphasizing public access to data and papers produced from its missions, The Verge reported, citing NASA’s past public-access efforts. Dreier said the proposed publication limits would reverse that trend by making research results less available outside universities, agencies or paid journals.
The proposal also raised concern because grants could be ended over a researcher’s associations or political views, according to The Verge’s account of Dreier’s warning. Dreier said the rule would allow grants to be cut even when a scientist had not violated a specific rule, if officials found the work contrary to presidential interests.
Space research groups see a practical risk for missions that have already cost years of work and large sums of money. The Verge reported that spacecraft construction and data collection contracts could continue, while grants for independent scientists to analyze the data could face political review.
Dreier told The Verge that collecting data is only the first stage of science. Researchers still need funding to interpret observations, test models, publish findings and debate results with other scientists.
The proposal has also drawn political and legal resistance. The New York Times reported on a Senate hearing with OMB Director Russell Vought in which Democratic senators criticized the rule’s effects as biased and unreasonable. A group of 24 governors and attorneys general argued in a comment letter that the rule is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers, according to the filing cited by The Verge.
The Verge reported that OMB did not appear ready to withdraw the rule despite the public response. The next fight is expected to include legal challenges if the administration keeps pressing the proposal.
This story draws on original reporting from The Verge.