Recently the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and National Academy of Medicine each submitted public comments to the Federal Register to object to a June proposal by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that would require research grant proposals to be reviewed by political appointees.  The public comments by each Academy reflect their unique perspectives while also expressing a shared concern that the OMB proposal would set back the pursuit of the types of discovery that have propelled the United States forward as a global leader in science, engineering, and medicine for many decades.

Our comments are largely based on a foundational report by the National Academies, Allocating Federal Funding for Science and Technology, which emphasized the importance of independent peer review in judging the merit of research grant proposals. 

We support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and stewardship of federal taxpayer dollars, but we believe the current OMB proposal should be revised to protect and further advance the U.S. research enterprise for the benefit of the nation.  Our public comments, as well as a comment by our publications, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and PNAS Nexus, can be read here:

Neil H. Shubin, President, National Academy of Sciences

Tsu-Jae Liu, President, National Academy of Engineering

Monica M. Bertagnolli, President, National Academy of Medicine 

PNAS and PNAS Nexus