New Article Warns of “Whiplash” in U.S. Science Policy as OMB Proposes Unprecedented Control over Federal Research Funding

Comments on the proposed rule are due July 13 before implementation scheduled for October 1, 2026

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A new article published in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine argues that science funding in America is being subjected to a dangerous cycle of politicization and counter-politicization that threatens the continuity of scientific research, the public’s trust in science, and the nation’s capacity for innovation.

Authored by Anna I. Krylov (University of Southern California), Jay Tanzman (Independent), Evan D. Morris (Yale), Julia Schaletzky (UC Berkeley), Elena Atochina-Vasserman (University of Pennsylvania), and Igor R. Efimov (Northwestern University), “Whiplash: Politicization and Counter-Politicization in Research Funding” examines how ideological priorities have increasingly entered science funding decisions and how subsequent efforts to reverse them have often relied on equally blunt political tools.

The article appears at a particularly consequential moment.

On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed sweeping revisions to federal grant regulations that would dramatically expand political oversight of research funding across agencies including NIH, NSF, DOE, and NASA. According to the proposal, senior political appointees would conduct mandatory pre-award reviews, and funding priorities would be required to align explicitly with the administration’s agenda. The new rules would also grant broader authority to terminate active awards and impose additional bureaucratic requirements on grant recipients. The authors warn that the proposed changes would fundamentally alter the traditional relationship between science and government.

Importantly, the OMB is currently accepting public comments on the proposed rule. Comments must be submitted by Monday, July 13, 2026, before the regulations are scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2026. Many organizations have set up tools to facilitate submitting comments (for example, here).

Beyond Left versus Right

The article argues that politicization of science is not confined to any one political ideology. Previous administrations introduced DEI requirements and ideological criteria into funding mechanisms, while the current administration has sought to reverse those policies through grant cancellations, administrative interventions, and restrictions on certain topics and language. Both tendencies, the authors contend, risk transforming science funding into an instrument of political objectives rather than a system for identifying and supporting the most promising scientific ideas.

Rather than focusing on partisan blame, the paper seeks to distinguish legitimate democratic governance of science from improper political interference in scientific evaluation. The authors propose a practical framework for recognizing politicization before it causes irreversible damage. They recommend asking questions such as:

• Do political considerations influence what research findings are acceptable?

• Are qualified investigators excluded from funding for ideological reasons?

• Are researchers prevented by policy from using the best scientific tools or theories?

• Is scientific language itself being regulated?

• Are funding decisions controlled by political actors rather than scientists?

• Is the funding process transparent?

A Warning About Instability

Drawing on examples from NIH and NSF, the authors describe how abrupt policy reversals, delays in funding decisions, opaque award processes, and institutional sanctions have disrupted laboratories, delayed discoveries, and weakened the training pipeline for young scientists. They warn that uncertainty itself becomes a powerful force shaping scientific behavior. Researchers begin to avoid controversial topics, alter language for political reasons, and gravitate toward intellectually safe but scientifically less ambitious work.

The article emphasizes that science has always existed within political institutions and that governments legitimately set broad priorities and budgets. The danger arises when politics reaches deeper—determining which hypotheses may be pursued, which investigators deserve support, or which conclusions are acceptable.

A Call to Restore Institutional Safeguards

The authors argue that reform should not consist merely of reversing the policies of previous administrations. Instead, they call for a renewed commitment to the principles that historically underpinned American scientific success: merit-based peer review, intellectual pluralism, and transparency.

“The challenge is not to eliminate politics from science—an impossible task—but to preserve institutional safeguards that prevent political priorities from distorting the process of science and its conclusions,” the authors conclude.

As the July 13 deadline for comments on the OMB proposal approaches, the debate described in Whiplash is no longer merely academic. The rules now under consideration may determine whether future science policy strengthens the postwar system that made American science the envy of the world—or accelerates its transformation into yet another arena of ideological conflict.

References

Krylov A.I., Tanzman J., Morris E.D., Schaletzky J., Atochina-Vasserman E., Efimov I.R. Whiplash: Politicization and Counter-Politicization in Research Funding. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 2026 (this is a preprint; archived version here).