The right to be judged by a jury of your peers is a bedrock of American democracy. This principle applies not only to the judicial system but also to how the federal government evaluates and awards billions of dollars in grants to natural and social scientists. This peer review system has ensured U.S. leadership in biomedical and technological innovation for more than 75 years.
But last month, the Office of Management and Budget proposed replacing this process with one in which federal funding rests on political appointments rather than scientific merit.
Federally funded, peer-reviewed research has advanced medicine, health, technology, and even the economy of the United States, improving the lives of Americans and people across the globe, since the close of World War II. Ending this proven system will poison U.S. science and medical research and endanger Americans’ well-being.
The primary federal funding agencies, which include the departments of defense, energy, education, and health and human services; the National Science Foundation; the National Institutes of Health; and NASA, use a similar funding model. Each agency engages a cadre of field experts who, in conjunction with knowledgeable political appointees and career employees, define agency and national priorities. These, in turn, inform public requests for proposals.
The hundreds of thousands of proposals submitted each year by U.S. researchers based primarily at colleges and universities are then carefully evaluated by panels of peer reviewers. Career agency officials with relevant expertise make the final funding decisions, giving deference to the peer reviewers. The process is highly competitive, and only the proposals deemed the most meritorious receive funding.
One of us has served on more than 40 federal grant review panels, and we know firsthand how wide-ranging the proposals are in terms of research areas, techniques used, and proposed analyses. It is impossible for one person to evaluate this breadth of inquiry effectively.
Only by involving multiple subject matter experts can the government ensure that the best projects — ones that will yield technological and biomedical advances aligned with broad national and international interests — are supported.
Admittedly, politics have always been a part of the funding process. Agency priorities are defined by executives who are political appointees. Until now, however, these priorities have matched the historic mission of each agency and the broad needs of our nation. In the present system, politics are also tempered by the peer review process.
If a presidential administration were to decide that research in a specific area was no longer important for political reasons, that could have disastrous consequences for our nation.
Imagine if early funding for the internet was denied because it was deemed a threat to established telecommunications companies or the U.S. Postal Service. If federal funding in essential areas such as cancer treatment or cybersecurity is eliminated, years of careful research will be lost, as will future students who will go elsewhere — a deficit that would take decades to overcome.
Adding an additional layer of political oversight to the federal funding process unnecessarily upends a proven and well-tested system; worse, it subjects science to bias and does not guarantee that the most impactful research will be funded.
As individuals, we would never consult a lawyer about how to treat an infectious disease. Asking political appointees who lack relevant knowledge or training to make decisions outside of their expertise will lead to failure.
Rodriguez is chancellor of the City University of New York. Brumberg is president of the CUNY Graduate Center.