The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed sweeping rule changes to federal research funding, whose devastating consequences are predicted in a new editorial in the journal Diabetes Care by Steven E. Kahn et al.
The editorial encourages people to comment publicly on the OMB website before July 13, 2026, noting that guidance on commenting is available from former NIH program officer Elizabeth Ginexi.
I have submitted a version of the comment below.
* * * * * * * * *
I am writing as a community college biologist who receives funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for science education research, who contributes to the peer review of other NSF proposals, and whose spouse conducts research funded primarily by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
A recent Diabetes Care editorial by Steven E. Kahn and colleagues (“Please Tell Me It Is Only a Nightmare—The Proposed Dismantling of the United States Federal Research Infrastructure”) argues that the proposed subjugation of federal research funding mechanisms to increased political oversight would undermine merit-based research in the USA. I strongly agree with Kahn et al. My agreement is informed by a precedent from 2011, when U.S. Senator Tom Coburn released a report titled “National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope,” which purported to reveal wasteful spending and mixed-up priorities at NSF (details may be found at Wikipedia, among other sources). My project at the time, on educational uses of science songs, was one of many singled out by that report. The report’s authors blatantly misrepresented our project for the sake of stirring up outrage, without making any attempt to contact us to clarify basic details. According to contemporaneous accounts, many other projects were similarly misrepresented for the sake of titillating (though incorrect) headlines like “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names.” To me, this 2011 misadventure in political oversight experience vividly and plausibly illustrates the danger of §200.205(b): decisions will be made by non-experts for possibly arbitrary political reasons, regardless of scientific merit.
Sen. Coburn’s 2011 report did harm to many of the projects profiled, mine included (e.g., the Principal Investigator and I differed on whether/how to respond to the accusations, and our relationship never recovered fully). However, we grant recipients were fortunate in the sense that the report was advisory; it did not directly impact the peer-review process or funding decisions. If §200.205(b) is enacted, we will not be so lucky. I urge OMB to withdraw §200.205(b).
Gregory J. Crowther, Ph.D.
Everett Community College
My Track Record 
Leave a comment