Editor’s Note: Today’s post is by Jessica Miles. Jessica is founder of The Informed Frontier, a consulting and advisory firm supporting organizations across the STM ecosystem.
As this audience surely is aware, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed sweeping changes to the approval and distribution of federal grants. The changes, if adopted, require grant awards to “…demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” a determination that will be made by appointees of the administration, not senior scientists. Additionally, the new rule, “Federal Financial Assistance,” states that peer review recommendations are merely “advisory.”
The proposed changes also prohibit the use of federal funds for journal subscriptions and require agency pre-approval to use grant funding for conference attendance costs, professional society memberships, and publication fees. (For a more complete summary of the 400+ page proposal, I have relied on this piece from former NIH Program Officer Elizabeth Ginexi and FASEB CEO Darla Henderson’s society-focused write-up for The Scholarly Kitchen.)
As both a trained scientist who has benefited immensely from scientific societies and a consultant who now works extensively with them, I wanted to understand the OMB proposal’s specific ramifications for STM societies and associations — though I acknowledge that many of these concerns are shared by other disciplines, institutions, and communities that also receive federal funding. Beyond its potentially devastating impact to science research and the global scientific enterprise, the rule change’s specific prohibitions against conferences, membership, and publications would upend how many societies generate income to serve their communities and sustain their organizations.
Over a three-week period in June, I spoke with eight leaders of scientific societies to understand how their organizations are navigating this disruption and what these changes could mean for the future of STM societies and organizations. These leaders — CEOs and Executive Directors, publishers, and an Editor-in-Chief / physician-scientist — were uniformly thoughtful in their wide-ranging responses. They covered the deeply devastating ramifications of the proposed rule, whether the proposal reflects the ignorance or malfeasance of the current administration, and what the near-term future could look like if the changes are implemented.
“A ‘Going Out of Business’ Sign on the Storefront of American Science”
Most of these conversations began with forceful denouncements of the proposal and its potential impacts. Several people likened it to a five-alarm fire for science, in comparison to the other policies the administration has introduced to date, with one CEO commenting that, since the administration is doing so many things to create downward pressure on research, the cumulative effect of these policies makes this salvo all the more devastating.
“The underlying message of the OMB proposals … is like a big ‘Going Out of Business’ sign on the storefront of American science. Students choose careers based on passions and interest areas, but also because they want to work. If American science is closing up shop, so is our talent pipeline,” said Chris Stelzig, Executive Director of the Entomological Society of America (ESA).
Beyond the specific provisions targeting conferences, membership, and publications, many leaders felt the most damaging aspects of the proposal are the changes to grant review.
“The system is already complex; this [change] will just stall decisions, funding, and progress,” said Diane Kovats, CEO of the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB). She went on to emphasize the importance of peer review and the impact of sidelining expert opinion, thus leaving the process vulnerable to lobbying or influence: “This will absolutely be crippling.”
Grant review is already essentially a volunteer activity, Deborah Veis, Professor of Medicine and Pathology and Immunology at WashU Medicine in St. Louis and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Plus (JBMR Plus), pointed out: “If [a review] becomes purely advisory, why would [people] invest the huge amount of time and effort in doing it?” The perception that expertise doesn’t matter to the people making funding decisions has been building as grant scoring has shifted over the last few years, and the new rules would only dissuade more scientists — especially senior ones — from participating in grant review.
Dr. Veis, a longstanding volunteer with the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research who has served on study sections (the groups that review NIH grants) as recently as last year, predicted this dynamic would also have consequences for peer review at journals. “When you receive a review, it’s important that the reviewer took the time to understand your work — is the criticism fair or unfair? Did they read my work thoroughly? Low quality erodes faith in peer review more broadly: if you get a bad grant review, you have less faith in the peer review process the next time you submit to a journal.” This downward spiral, she cautioned, degrades a sense of community, further threatening peer review. “When resources become scarce, community breaks down,” she commented, concluding that such conditions compel researchers to focus on self-preservation, rather than the needs of the community.
“These Changes Fundamentally Obstruct Scientists’ Ability to Conduct Science”
While the leaders differed in their views around the relative importance of publications and conferences, all agreed that the changes strike at the heart of how science is communicated, “fundamentally obstruct[ing] scientists’ ability to conduct science, ” to quote Stelzig, the ESA Executive Director.
“Without convening, science is hurt. Conferences are where solutions come from,” said Elena Gerstmann, Executive Director for the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). She noted the criticality of hallway conversations in sparking collaboration, recalling that Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, joint recipients of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, decided to work together after meeting at a conference in 2011. Kovats, the ISCB CEO, agreed, explaining, “We are a tool for wet-lab biologists and life scientists dealing with data. There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings.” She shared that their 2026 annual meeting has seen a 22% drop in attendance from the year prior due to international boycotts of the US, grant cuts, and stalled awards.
“The downward pressure on conferences is real, and it adds to what we’re already experiencing,” said Matt Loeb, CEO of the American Society for Cell Biology. “Research resources are finite, and choices need to be made on time and existing budgets. Labs are forced to apply greater scrutiny as to where to invest their limited resources.” Pointing to the need for scientists to share and acquire information, he predicts that journals will withstand this latest disruption: “Researchers need access. They need to publish. And their institutions know this. They will find a way to get access, even if it means wrestling their institution for additional financial support.”
Other leaders were less optimistic. “Our members are definitely most worried about the impact of this new rule on publications,” said Judy Keen, CEO of The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). “You have to be able to put your research out there, but who will pay for it?”
Where Do We Go From Here?
How are associations meeting this moment? Most of the leaders I spoke with are putting their full focus on opposing the proposal in the short-term, but some articulated a wait-and-see approach. “We’re trying to keep things in proportion as the experience so far points to the Administration not having a great record of actually getting things through that are originally proposed. Let’s hope that continues to be the case,” a publishing executive wrote to me by email. “Some folks think it’s a distraction, that nothing will actually change — it’s just throwing spaghetti at the wall,” suggested one leader, while another spoke of the proposal as another drop in a deluge designed to “flood the zone.” Views differed as to whether the intention of the proposal was genuine reform or, to borrow a phrase, “a brazen power grab.”
“Have scientists done the best job in explaining what we do to the rest of the country? Probably not,” reflected Dr. Veis. She offered several possible explanations for these shortcomings: “At school, science is usually taught rigidly with a single right answer to a multiple choice question. We say we want kids to be experimental, but it becomes memorization as kids progress. There is an expectation for science communication to be absolute. We don’t show it as a living thing or communicate relative risk, day-to-day. We could do a better job of consistently communicating that uncertainty is normal and important.” “How do we tell our story?” mused another leader, acknowledging the apparent contradiction of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” needing experts for peer review; “the need for expertise sounds elitist.”
“Even if you’re motivated by the goal of reducing wasteful spending, these proposals amount to swatting a gnat with a steamroller,” declared Stelzig, reminding me, “American science successfully eradicated New World screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax, NWS) from North America, a parasitic maggot that infests livestock, pets, wild warm‐blooded animals, and, on rare occasions, humans. But as a nation we got complacent and reduced our federal investment in keeping this pest away. You may have heard about NWS in the news recently. It has resurged, reinvaded Mexico, and very recently been detected in the US And yet this is exactly the kind of science that is often targeted as wasteful.”
Everyone I talked to had planned letters, comments, and efforts to mobilize society members and partners to submit public comments before July 13. Several spoke of the importance of formal and informal collaborations with larger associations, though some questioned the impact of these efforts. “I struggle with public comments and sign-on letters – I don’t know that these comments work,” admitted one leader. “The Executive Branch can do what it wants.” This CEO suspected that comments that convey the potential economic impact of these changes would be the most persuasive to the current administration: “Scientific discoveries will happen even with these rule changes. What is the collateral damage being done by this kind of approach in terms of the US being a place where we invest in science?”
Others also saw a need to raise greater awareness of the vastness of the scientific ecosystem, including its impact on industry. Kovats spoke of her association, ISCB, as “truly a bridge between academia and industry,” noting the need to spell out the value of scientific research to industry: “Whether it’s NVIDIA or pharmaceuticals, they rely on academic research for their products to thrive. If we lose that interaction with industry, we’ll lose the funding that helps propel science.”
“We Don’t Have Borders in Our Search for Knowledge”
I asked the leaders how they anticipated balancing these potential changes to US policy with the needs of their global communities. Referencing the recent Bundibugyo ebolavirus outbreak, Kovats noted that: “Protecting national research interests is an understandable priority in today’s competitive global environment. However, science does not stop at national borders. Scientists depend on international datasets and collaborations to validate discoveries across diverse populations and identify findings that would otherwise remain hidden. You don’t know what you don’t know until you can compare data across the broader scientific ecosystem. The challenge is developing policies that protect national interests without creating unnecessary barriers to the collaboration that advances science for everyone.”
If the rule is implemented, “ISCB would have to look at things differently,” she said, glumly suggesting the possibility of spinning off US members to sustain access. “We don’t have borders in our search for knowledge,” Dr. Veis said simply, noting that scientists don’t know where their next idea will come from, and the flow of ideas comes with a flow of people. She offered her own experience as an example, saying, “I only started thinking about infection because of a postdoc with a background in microbiology who joined my lab. A chance encounter can change a research trajectory.”
Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste
“We all have to change,” said Keen, the ASMBR CEO. She pointed to the 2024 election as a bellwether, but noted that concerns have been building on society business models steadily over the last decade, as many associations have faced challenges in recruiting younger members and attrition at annual meetings since the COVID-19 pandemic. Even if the proposal ultimately isn’t adopted, she said, the lesson is it’s not a matter of if — there’s something coming down the road.
Several of Keen’s peers expressed similar sentiments. One shared with me anonymously, “Associations with no reserves are in a pretty tough position, losing publishing and conferences. We’re in pretty good shape, but have a limited runway. A couple of bad years would create the need for new products and services … if two of the three pillars [membership, conferences, publications] disappear, where does income come from?”
“We’ll need to support alternative means of sharing and acquiring information,” said Loeb, the ASCB CEO, noting that this would likely mean more virtual offerings, fewer meetings, and more cohort-based convening. Dr. Veis was optimistic that societies would adapt to be more public-facing and less focused on serving their own communities, citing a community engagement initiative that ASMBR launched to raise awareness and dialogue about osteoporosis.
“There’s no going back to the way things were,” Loeb remarked towards the end of our conversation. “The real question is: can we as scientific societies, together with the broader research community, step up and help architect the new order?”
