Nebraska is built on hard work, practical knowledge, innovation, and a deep respect for the land. We plant seeds each spring trusting that careful cultivation will yield a fruitful harvest in the fall. Science works the same way. It requires patience, sustained effort, investment, and the resources to follow the evidence wherever it leads. A proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) threatens that process by weakening the role of scientific peer review in federal research funding decisions.
The federal government has long supported research because it benefits society in countless ways. A central strength of that system has been a clear division of responsibilities: elected officials establish priorities and funding levels, while scientific experts evaluate scientific merit. The proposed rule would fundamentally alter that arrangement by requiring senior political appointees to review research funding decisions while prohibiting deference to the scientific experts’ evaluation of scientific merit. These officials may have no training or expertise in the science or fields they are evaluating.
This concern is institutional rather than partisan. Elected officials have the responsibility to establish national priorities, determine funding levels, and direct the overall goals of federal agencies. Those responsibilities are essential to representative government. The issue is whether scientific merit should be judged primarily by scientists or by political appointees. The proposed rule significantly blurs that distinction.
The proposal also threatens the long-term stability that scientific research requires. Such sustained high-impact research programs rely on predictable funding, long-term planning, specialized infrastructure, and the training and retention of students and early-career scientists. Expanding the authority to revisit funding decisions outside the peer-review process introduces uncertainty that discourages ambitious projects and favors shorter-term, less innovative work. Scientific progress rarely follows election cycles, and a research system that becomes increasingly vulnerable to political shifts risks sacrificing long-term discovery for short-term flexibility. Such instability would undermine the scientific workforce pipeline and erode the foundation that has made the United States a global leader in biomedical research and innovation that leads to better health and a longer lifespan for the American people.
This matters to Nebraska. The drought-resistant crop varieties, precision agriculture technologies, livestock disease treatments, and medical advances that benefit our communities did not emerge from political review committees. They resulted from years of patient research conducted by scientists and supported through a stable system of expert evaluation. Federal research funding supports thousands of jobs at Nebraska’s universities, hospitals, research centers, and private businesses while generating economic activity throughout the state. It helps train a highly skilled workforce, attracts investment, and drives innovation in agriculture, healthcare, engineering, and technology. When research funding becomes less predictable, so do the economic, educational, and technological benefits it generates.
The issue is larger than any single administration. The authority granted today will be exercised by future administrations as well. America’s leadership in science and innovation was built on a longstanding commitment to expertise, evidence, intellectual independence, and peer review of scientific merit. Those principles have served the nation well. Preserving them is essential to maintaining the strength, stability, and competitiveness of the American research enterprise for future generations.
Dr. David A. Crouse, Ph.D., Board Member, Nebraska Cures
Dr. Joel Berrier, Ph.D., President, Nebraska Academy of Sciences