Editors’ note: Today’s post is by Lisa Schiff, Anna Culbertson, Eric Rubin, and Yael Fitzpatrick. Lisa is Co-founder of #DefendResearch. Anna is Executive Director and Co-Founder of 27 UNIHTED. Eric is the Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and NEJM Group. And Yael is an independent consultant.

Now that the public comment period has closed for the proposed US federal funding rule change by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), we asked leading voices in our community for their thoughts and expectations. Today, we ask the community: What key message(s) do you want policymakers to take from the responses submitted to the OMB?

Lisa Schiff

My message to policymakers remains the same as it has been since January 20, 2025, and is consistent with early analysis of comments submitted to the OMB: the federally funded research enterprise should be based in rigorous, domain-appropriate practices; vetted by knowledgeable peers; and expansively encompass our country’s broad interests, concerns, and experiences. What it should not be is a financing project to support narrow political objectives rewarding the few at the cost of the many. As I wrote in my comment: “Rigorous research, assessed by qualified peer scholars, is the exploration of the unknown, generating new knowledge and often unanticipated positive outcomes. Rigorous research is also our best strategy for identifying solutions to known, significant problems. In other words, the world around us is vast and complex and solid, scientific research is humanity’s best tool for understanding that world … [and is] … one of our most beneficial collective investments.”

Anna Culbertson

To policymakers: the proposed OMB title 2 CFR § 200 rule will fundamentally shift the way that U.S. science is conducted. Historically, NIH and health research have been protected by bipartisan efforts due to the importance of the life-saving health advances they have produced. NIH research has contributed to approximately 99% of drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2019, and investments in NIH return $2.56 for every dollar invested. Last year, the current administration interrupted an estimated 74,000 clinical trials based on political ideology. This proposed rule will codify these kinds of actions. The consequences of political appointees who can terminate grants at any time for any reason with no chance for appeal will cause unnecessary suffering for patients, researchers, and the economy broadly. I wrote in my personal comment about wanting to prevent unnecessary loss of loved ones due to this proposed rule. 27 UNIHTED wrote about all the harms as it relates to NIH and the academic industry in their public comment. I suggest, depending on which issue areas are of most importance to you and your constituents, reading some of the public comments published about the harms this proposed rule will cause. The comments I have read and written are heartbreaking.

Please use your power as the Article I branch to stop implementation of the proposed OMB rule and spare your constituents and yourselves immediate and long-term damage that will come from the enactment of this rule. Even beyond science, this rule will impact many aspects of your constituents’ lives. This will extend to include education, community infrastructure, and public safety.

Eric J. Rubin

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of healthcare. And that evidence comes from a systematic approach to scrutinizing data and methods by experts in a scientific field. What I want policymakers to take away from the Office of Management and Budget comments is that the strength of American research comes from allowing scientific merit to decide which research is funded, not the loudest voice on the hill.

Scientific progress comes from thousands of investigators asking important questions, challenging one another’s ideas, and building on published evidence. Most individual studies don’t change medicine overnight; they add another piece to a larger body of evidence. Over time, that accumulated evidence changes how we care for patients.

This process depends on independent scientific review. While peer review may not be perfect, it remains the best way we have to evaluate research. If scientific merit becomes secondary to political considerations, research funding becomes vulnerable to priorities that have very little to do with quality science.

Consider what we would be missing without treatments for childhood leukemia, cures for sickle cell anemia, or a vaccine that eliminated smallpox. These advances came from international research collaborations, answering important questions that often take years to solve. Allowing scientists to work with peers around the world confronts challenges that no single institution or country could address alone. This strengthens the American biomedical research system.

Medical journal editors play a role too. We identify what findings matter, judge the quality of the science underpinning them, and help researchers report their work in a transparent and accessible manner so that physicians can put it into practice to care for their patients. I ask policymakers to carefully consider all comments submitted to OMB and ensure that any reform strengthens the scientific process rather than politicizing it. The U.S. leadership in medicine was earned through decades of consistent progress in clinical research. Protecting the institutions and processes that make that research possible is the most important investment this country can make in evidence-based healthcare.

Yael Fitzpatrick

The speed and depth of the erosion of the United States’ reputation on the world stage is staggering and bone-chilling. This latest direct attack on scholarship seems to fall into the category of things from which we will not and cannot ever fully recover. The “this is why we can’t have nice things” energy is palpable.

There has been a longstanding presumption by many in the US that the country is the be-all and end-all, globally; that it is the best and untouchable on all matters, especially for innovative advancements and scientific progress. That is certainly not the case these days (if it ever was), despite the declaration that we are entering “A New Golden Age of Science.” Instead, I heed the recent warning from US representative Deborah Ross of North Carolina, who sees this type of rhetoric as a method of distracting the nation from the reality of our “crumbling scientific infrastructure.”

If there is to be any hope of living the healthy, prosperous, and peaceful lives we all deserve, and in particular to truly move research and science forward, there must be mutual respect and cooperation between nations. In regard to what’s happening with this OMB rule change, my hope is that US policymakers pull their heads out of the sand enough to understand this critical cooperative dynamic is key to our survival. Only they can pull us back from the brink of utter reputational ruin and national disaster.

I keep thinking of and clinging to the encouraging statistic that Jay Patel shared during this year’s SSP annual meeting based on data from the Pew Research Center: that 77% of Americans still trust science, and regard scientists as among the most trusted professionals. I hope that number stays high, and that the OMB’s partisan and short-sighted actions don’t decimate that trust.