"Since the late 1940s, the legislative branch of the federal government has set priorities for scientific research and an expert-driven civil service has implemented them in consultation with external scientists. Now, this decentralized model is being replaced by one in which the president, through political appointees, is exerting unprecedented control over what research gets funded and who conducts it, with little say from Congress."
"Several analyses show that civil servants who are hired on merit are more effective than political appointees are at ensuring that government agencies operate effectively. A 2023 systematic review of more than 1,000 articles on meritocracy and government performance shows, for instance, that merit-based systems do better than politicized ones on all sorts of measures - from corruption and efficiency to civil-servant motivation and public trust."
Congress passed legislation limiting non-defense research spending cuts to 3-7%, far below President Trump's proposed 33% reduction. While scientists welcomed this outcome, fundamental governance problems persist. For decades, Congress set research priorities while expert civil servants implemented them with external scientist input. This decentralized, merit-based model is being replaced by centralized presidential control through political appointees, with minimal congressional involvement. Research demonstrates merit-based systems outperform politicized governance across corruption, efficiency, motivation, and public trust measures. The authors advocate restoring expert-led decentralized governance at the NIH and other science agencies through strengthened legislation, requiring Congress to reassert its role in directing federal research priorities.
#federal-science-governance #merit-based-civil-service #research-funding-policy #presidential-control-vs-congressional-authority #nih-administration
Read at Nature
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]