Opinion: I’ve spent 40 years in research. I have never seen a threat to science like the new grantmaking rule

OpinionFirst Opinion I’ve spent 40 years in research. I have never seen a threat to science like the new grantmaking rule A proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget would add political scrutiny to science Manage alerts for this article Email this article Share this article By David J. SkortonJune 12, 2026 Skorton is president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Childhood leukemia, a likely death sentence when I was a medical student, is now survivable for most children. Cancer immunotherapy is extending life for many who would have died a decade ago. New technology is letting us repair genetic diseases at their source. The same American scientific research enterprise that produced these breakthroughs also gave us GPS, the modern semiconductor, and the early architecture of the internet. All of it came out of an American research enterprise that the federal government is now proposing to fundamentally rewire for no good reason.Advertisement In my more than 40 years in higher education and research, I have watched the American approach to research weather budget fights, ideological storms, and presidential transitions. Working across administrations, I have seen firsthand how American science survives changes in politics because of the guardrails Congress and the executive branch have historically left in place. I have never seen a threat to those guardrails like the one now sitting on the table at the Office of Management and Budget. A new proposed rule, a revision of the so-called Uniform Guidance, would change how federally funded research is reviewed, awarded, and overseen across every agency in the federal government. If finalized as written, it would insert a political lens on top of a process that, for 80 years, has been run by scientists evaluating the work of other scientists.Advertisement The sweeping proposal seeks to replace long-standing guidance to agencies about how grants should be managed with binding regulations requiring that every research grant “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” It would codify this administration’s priorities into rules intended to tether future administrations to those priorities. Scientific judgment and political preference serve different purposes. Mixing them does not improve research. It undermines the very thing that has made American discovery work, which is the freedom of scientists to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without permission from Republicans or Democrats in Washington. The scientist-led peer review of research ideas from other scientists, paired with robust funding, is why American science remains the envy of the world. In practice, a cancer researcher has an idea about how a particular protein behaves in tumor cells. She writes a proposal. That proposal is read, scored, and debated by other researchers, people who have spent their careers in science and can recognize a promising idea. Currently, no one in Washington decides whether her question is politically convenient. No one gets to wave a project through or kill it because of the partisan-driven fight of the day. Cures and treatments should not have to clear a political review. This system mapped the human genome, laid the foundations of artificial intelligence, and produced the lithium-ion battery. It gave us the targeted therapies that transformed aggressive breast cancers into treatable diseases, and the medicines that let children born with cystic fibrosis live into adulthood. It is the system that contributed to Operation Warp Speed, a defining scientific achievement during President Trump’s first administration. Furthermore, it is an economic powerhouse. According to the annual analysis from United for Medical Research, every dollar of NIH funding returns $2.57 in new economic activity. Over the past decade, that has added up to $822 billion in economic activity and an average of nearly 370,000 jobs a year. Crucially, it draws the best minds in the world to American laboratories, where many of them stay, build companies, train the next generation, and contribute to the American economy.Advertisement A political litmus test on federally funded research is dangerous. An administration’s scientific goals should drive advances in treatments and responses to new threats, not drive fear into every scientist that promising ideas will be ignored or halted midstream because they don’t match a political talking point. Reevaluating every research grant with a political lens each time a new party is in power could end America’s scientific progress and leadership. Meanwhile, our competitors are marching on. China now leads R&D funding in several fields, and the European Union actively courts American scientists with promises of stability. Politicizing our research review process sends the exact signal our rivals hope for and brings severe economic, geopolitical, and national security ramifications. Presidents and members of Congress of both parties have understood for decades that American science is too valuable to be turned into a political football. The proposed revisions walk away from that understanding. The American research enterprise can certainly be improved. Grant reviews can be faster, and public trust must be rebuilt. But none of that requires dismantling what makes us succeed. Everyone with a stake in American discovery — scientists, university leaders, hospital executives, patient advocates, business leaders — should make their voice heard during the 45-day comment period. Members of Congress in both parties should look closely at what this rule would actually do. And I invite the administration to sit down with the people who constitute the American research enterprise and find a path forward that strengthens it rather than weakens it. We can debate funding levels and priorities. What we cannot afford to risk is the momentum that those waiting for cures expect from us. If we walk away from that, we will not just lose the cures we have — we will lose the cures we have not yet imagined. David J. Skorton, M.D., is president and CEO of the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges), a not-for-profit association that represents medical schools.Advertisement Letter to the editor Have an opinion on this essay? Submit a letter to the editor. NIH, Policy, research Submit a correction requestReprints David J. Skorton Newsletter The smartest thinkers in life sciences on what's happening — and what's to come Recommended First Opinion June 12, 2026 Ebola outbreak response requires engaging with religious traditions and leaders First Opinion June 11, 2026 We published in Nature Medicine in 2025 for free. In 2026, it cost us $12,850 Advertisement First Opinion June 11, 2026 How long Covid’s scientific stalemate made it politically erasable First Opinion June 10, 2026 Even in abortion-protecting states, teens face unnecessary barriers to care First Opinion Podcast June 10, 2026 ‘They all think I’m insane’: What it’s like to start medical residency at 72 Subscriber Picks