In late May, the Office of Management and Budget released a proposed rule that could fundamentally change how scientific research is funded in the United States.

If finalized as written, this rule would give political appointees veto power over peer review, allow the government to cancel active grants mid-project with minimal justification, ban entire categories of science from federal funding, and restrict researchers’ ability to publish their work and attend scientific conferences.

This is not a routine regulatory update. It is a restructuring of the foundational rules governing U.S. science funding. If implemented, the consequences would be severe for the nation as a whole and particularly damaging for Hawaii, where federally supported research plays a vital role in public safety, economic development, environmental stewardship, and national security.

Ideas showcases stories, opinion and analysis about Hawaiʻi, from the state’s sharpest thinkers, to stretch our collective thinking about a problem or an issue. Email news@civilbeat.org to submit an idea or an essay.

Read More

I strongly oppose this proposed OMB regulation. In a nation whose economic strength, national security, public health, and future prosperity depend heavily on science and technology, allowing political considerations to override expert scientific judgment would be deeply damaging.

As President John F. Kennedy observed, “The nation that is first in the world of science and technology will be first in the world of economics.” Weakening the independence of scientific funding decisions risks undermining the very engine of American innovation and competitiveness.

For decades, the federal government has relied on scientific advisory bodies to provide independent, evidence-based guidance on science and technology policy. The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology was established to ensure that national policy benefits from the expertise of leading scientists and engineers.

When such mechanisms are weakened or sidelined, decisions affecting research, climate, health, energy, and national security can proceed without adequate scientific input.

History shows that sustained federal support for independent research has produced enormous public benefits. The internet, GPS, advanced weather forecasting, satellite communications, and many medical advances emerged from federally funded research. In his landmark 1945 report, “Science, The Endless Frontier,” Vannevar Bush argued that basic research is the “pacemaker of technological progress,” a principle that has guided decades of American prosperity and innovation.

The stakes are especially high for Hawaii. Federal research investments support hurricane prediction, tsunami warning systems, climate monitoring, drought and wildfire forecasting, coral reef protection, fisheries management, renewable energy development, astronomy, and the study of volcanic and seismic hazards.

Scientists at the University of Hawaiʻi, NOAA facilities in the Pacific, the East-West Center, and other institutions generate knowledge that helps protect lives, strengthen national security, and support key sectors of Hawaiʻi’s economy.

Hawaiʻi occupies a uniquely important position in the American research enterprise. The University of Hawaiʻi conducts internationally recognized research in atmospheric science, oceanography, climate, volcanology, and marine biology.

Hawaiʻi is also home to world-class astronomical facilities on Mauna Kea that contribute to American scientific leadership. These efforts provide the scientific foundation for hurricane forecasts, tsunami warnings, military weather support, and climate information that helps communities prepare for drought, wildfire, sea-level rise, and extreme weather.

Federal research funding also supports thousands of high-skilled jobs in Hawaiʻi and brings substantial investment into the state through competitive grants and research contracts. The proposed regulation threatens not only scientific progress but also economic opportunities that depend on a vibrant research community.

Political interference in scientific funding decisions would jeopardize these benefits. Projects could be terminated not because they fail scientific review, but because they become politically inconvenient. Entire fields of inquiry could be excluded regardless of their scientific merit. Researchers could face new barriers to publishing their findings and collaborating with colleagues around the world.

Such policies would discourage talented young scientists from pursuing research careers and weaken the collaborative networks that drive innovation.

The consequences would extend far beyond Hawaiʻi. The United States faces growing competition from nations that are investing aggressively in science, technology, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and clean energy. America’s success has long depended on a system in which scientific merit, rigorous peer review, and open inquiry guide research investments.

Replacing that system with one vulnerable to political influence risks slowing innovation, weakening economic competitiveness, and diminishing our global leadership.

This regulation moves in precisely the wrong direction. It would concentrate greater control over scientific priorities in the hands of political appointees rather than subject-matter experts, increasing the risk that funding decisions reflect ideology or short-term politics instead of scientific merit and national need.

Such a shift would not merely harm researchers; it would weaken America’s long-term capacity for innovation, economic growth, disaster preparedness, national security, and global leadership.

At a time when scientific knowledge is more important than ever, the federal government should be strengthening the independence and integrity of the scientific enterprise — not undermining it.