Office of Management and Budget Proposes Scientific Research Funding Revision

The War Against ‘Woke’ Could End US Science as We Know it In a move that has left many in the scientific community reeling, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued a 412-page proposal to revise federal financial assistance. The proposal, dated May 29th, seems innocuous at first glance, with phrases like providing further clarification on the regulatory status of the OMB requirements masking a far more sinister intent. The changes, championed by a group of influential politicians with a strong track record of dismantling progressive policies, are designed to eradicate what they see as woke ideologies from the realm of scientific research..

At its core, this attempt to undermine scientific inquiry is part of a broader culture war that has been engulfing the United States. Proponents of this effort argue that it’s necessary to combat what they perceive as an overemphasis on diversity and inclusion, fearing that these concerns have become insidiously embedded within federal policies. Critics, however, warn that such an attack will have far-reaching consequences for the country’s scientific prowess..

The revised rules would require researchers to provide scientific evidence for the need to pursue projects that aim to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). But here’s the rub: the proposal is woefully ambiguous about what this means in practical terms. It’s a catch-all phrase that could be applied broadly enough to ensnare almost any research project that seeks to address social inequalities, effectively stifling the progress of a generation..

While the OMB may have intended the revised rules to be a subtle tool for dismantling perceived woke ideologies, experts warn that the end result would be to strangle the very heart of American scientific research. This isn’t just a hypothetical worry either – in reality, it’s scientists who would be left with the daunting task of navigating the minefield created by these rules. They would need to justify their work not only in terms of merit, but also by providing evidence that the topics they investigate are somehow uniquely deserving of support..

The language used in the revised rules appears deliberately designed to confuse, making it all but impossible for critics to discern the full implications of these changes. It’s almost as if the politicians pushing this agenda are following the age-old playbook for disarming opposition: obfuscate, then divide; create confusion, then dictate. One of the most striking features of the revised proposal is its heavy-handed attack on the concept of equity itself..

According to the text, equity is often treated as a synonym for equality, which, of course, it is. The move here, critics argue, is not an attempt to define a nebulous concept, but a transparent effort to devalue the very idea of fairness. It amounts to nothing less than a declaration of war by those seeking to eviscerate American science..

This culture war, which started during the Trump administration, is escalating and has only become more entrenched. Now, under the Biden administration, there’s still an attempt to further dismantle progressive policies such as equity and inclusion from research. If left unchecked, history will likely remember this era for the systematic degradation of American research and its values..

For many scientists, the revised rules represent a thinly veiled assault on the very foundations of American science. This would result in a seismic shift in priorities, favoring projects that focus solely on the ‘hard sciences’ while disinvesting in the social and behavioral sciences. But this is not a zero-sum game – scientists warn that the loss of social science research would have catastrophic consequences for public health and policy-making..

One scientist has been quoted as saying, If we’re going to restrict research to only those questions that can be answered by the natural sciences, then where’s the space for the humanities and social sciences? How are we supposed to develop policies that tackle pressing social issues if we exclude those critical voices? It raises difficult questions for policymakers and the broader American public..

Meanwhile, experts argue that there are simple, straightforward solutions to prevent this from happening. The government could simply establish a clear set of guidelines, stating that social science research is essential for public understanding, and therefore worthy of support, suggests a leading figure in the scientific community. Unfortunately, the likelihood of meaningful action from the OMB looks increasingly slim..

As we move forward, the scientific community finds itself on the frontlines of this ideological battle, bracing itself for an all-out war over what it means to do good science in the United States. Those supporting science stand at a crossroads, fighting to protect the principles that have long guided the country’s research endeavors. For their part, critics of the revised rules say this isn’t just about winning or losing a culture war – it’s about safeguarding the integrity of American science itself..

If successful, the impact could be devastating. The long-term effects on research, not to mention individual scientists, would be nothing short of catastrophic. Ultimately, this is a choice about priorities – what America values, and what it stands for..

It would be a mistake to view this battle as isolated – the stakes are far higher than simply fighting over the terms of government grants. This represents a deeper struggle to preserve the country’s commitment to understanding itself, and the world around it. By choosing to let this revised proposal slide, the US would effectively cede its scientific superiority to other nations while undermining the social cohesion, innovation, and progress that underpin American society as a whole..