Bioethics Forum Essay
Submit a Comment: Keep Politics Out of Science Funding
Bioethicists and others should submit comments on the Office of Management and Budget proposal to revise its rules on how the government awards and manages federal grants. The deadline for public comment is July 13. (Submit a comment here). The proposal has many flaws. I will examine one of them that is particularly harmful: grant funding decisions would require approval by political appointees rather than relying primarily on peer review.
That requirement calls to my mind an experience from early in my career. In 1966, as an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University trained both in science (at MIT) and in the humanities (at Stanford), I was exploring decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Medical decisions exemplify such challenges because clinicians never have certainty about what effect a treatment will have on a specific patient. The interplay of time-constraints, differing values, and inconclusive information can seem immobilizing. I was especially interested in the role that ethical considerations might play in those medical decisions.
I went to see Fred Robbins, a pediatrician and virologist who had just been appointed dean of medicine, to ask whether he would consider assisting me. He reached behind his desk, picked something up, and handed it to me. “That,” he said, “is the Nobel Prize gold medal I received for my role in developing the vaccine that prevents polio.” He then went on to say that it is essential to be able to do research without political interference and that it should withstand rigorous ethical scrutiny. “Of course I want to work with you. Whatever you need; just tell me.”
That conversation began a highly productive collaboration in bioethics that lasted for many years, first in Cleveland and then later when I was at the University of Maryland and Robbins was president of the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
Among those collaborations was the Moral Problems in Medicine Project at Case Western and the project’s development of the first textbook in bioethics, Moral Problems in Medicine, published in 1976. One year later the book was being used by more than 100 colleges and universities.
The visibility of that work led to many of its co-editors having opportunities to give Congressional testimony, advise federal agencies, and play leadership roles in international deliberations at the World Health Organization and other agencies trying to craft ethical guidelines for medical challenges.
Starting in 1986, as Dean of Arts and Sciences at Syracuse University, I had extensive experience with every aspect of funding, conducting, evaluating, and reporting on scientific research – in the physical, biological, and social sciences. This included the training of future scientists and science educators who were graduate students, postdoctoral fellows working in laboratories, and teaching assistants working in classrooms under the guidance of faculty mentors.
The kind of political interference Fred Robbins feared has caused many of the best scientists to leave their countries to work elsewhere. Recently, accomplished scientists have relocated from the United States to other countries seen to be more respectful of upholding the integrity of scientific standards. The loss of scientists harms our country immediately and degrades our ability to meet future challenges. It risks making us followers rather than leaders.
To see but one example of the potential corrosive effect of the proposed changes to federal grantmaking and management, consider political views about vaccines. Vaccine skepticism in the U.S. government risks impeding promising research into emerging epidemics such as ebola, mpox, dengue, and others. Many thousands of lives, perhaps millions, are at stake.
There is nothing wrong with politicians expressing judgments about scientific work. Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire was famous for his Golden Fleece awards, which called attention to government grants in support of scientific projects he judged to have been poor investments. Sometimes he was right; sometimes he was wrong. But at no point did he seek to exercise prior judgment, trying to impose political constraints on what grants were approved. He knew better. His criticisms, albeit annoying at times, encouraged funders and scientists to be more reflective, rigorous, and careful in their work.
Good science, unlike bad politics, relies on unvarnished critical commentary to maximize the quality of the work as well as the prudence of expenditures.
The OMB’s proposed rule is unacceptable, contrary to our national interest, and should be withdrawn.
I am not optimistic that OMB will be moved by any amount of commentary, or by the cogency of any arguments, to modify what it intends to do. More likely, it is just going through the motions of a legally required comment period. But there is value in bioethicists and others sending and broadly sharing strong comments of opposition, which can help build coalitions and reinforce commitments to resist the erosion of our scientific and engineering leadership.
Sending such comments should not be left only to the scientific community. It is the public that stands to benefit or be harmed by the fate of America’s technical excellence; it is the taxpayer who provides the source of federal funding. We should all join the defense against this destructive OMB plan. Submit your comment here.
Samuel Gorovitz, PhD, is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Syracuse University and a Hastings Center Fellow. The views he expressed are his own.
