‘The purpose of the rule is fascism’: scientists fight back against planned Trump research cuts

Stand for Science protesters carrying signs opposing cuts to scientific research by the Trump administration. Photograph: Melinda Crawford/Universal Images Group/Getty Images View image in fullscreen Stand for Science protesters carrying signs opposing cuts to scientific research by the Trump administration. Photograph: Melinda Crawford/Universal Images Group/Getty Images ‘The purpose of the rule is fascism’: scientists fight back against planned Trump research cuts Stand Up for Science founder says proposal to control how grants are spent would ‘dismantle US science ecosystem’ W hile waiting to board her flight home at Ronald Reagan Washington national airport recently, Colette Delawalla was reviewing a list of possible impacts from a proposed Trump administration rule on controlling federal money, including grants for research. Delawalla, the founder of the group Stand Up for Science, had just completed a three-day visit to Capitol Hill, where she met one by one with more than 30 members of Congress, part of a full-court press the organization has launched in recent weeks, sounding the alarm on the office of management and budget (OMB) proposal. A mother of a toddler, she stopped and thought about the listed example: a clinical trial under way meant to address the issue of parents who become suicidal after an infant death. The trial would likely be made illegal under the new rule, since it includes the sorts of international collaboration the rule prohibits. “I lost it,” she told the Guardian. “I have a two-and-a-half-year-old son at home and thought of what I would do if something happened to him. I just cried.” The rule, proposed by OMB director Russ Vought on 29 May, would place all research and other federal grants under the control of political appointees, rather than scientific or subject-matter experts. Writing on her Substack , former National Institutes of Health (NIH) program official Elizabeth Ginexi quoted the rule as prohibiting anything that “promote[s] anti-American values”. “The rule also requires that discretionary awards must ‘… demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities,’” she added. In other words, said Delawalla, it would create a “$1.5tn slush fund” under Trump’s control. “The purpose of the rule is fascism,” she told the Guardian. “It would dismantle the US science ecosystem – but also all federal discretionary grants,” added Delawalla, on the phone from her home in Decatur, Georgia. “It’s huge.” The organization’s tactics include urging members of the public to post comments on the rule by the federal government’s 13 July deadline. Stand Up for Science has posted pointers on making comments on their website. There were nearly 31,000 comments left at the OMB’s page on the rule as of Thursday morning. Stand up for Science is also exploring legal responses should the rule go through. Delawalla held a virtual meeting last Friday with some 50 attorneys across the US to discuss strategies. And how did her trip to C