Academic scientists, biotech executives and investors, and patient advocacy groups are sounding alarms over the Trump administration's plans to add political reviews to the process for making research grants.

Why it matters: America's status as the world leader in science and innovation is threatened by China's meteoric rise, and critics of the proposal are warning it would undermine the U.S. research infrastructure at precisely the wrong moment.

Driving the news: The Office of Management and Budget proposal would require political appointees to review grant requests and treat scientific peer review — the current method used to award federal dollars — as merely advisory.

• It says the change is needed to ensure federal awards are aligned with "administration priorities."

Where it stands: The proposal, posted at the end of May, has already drawn more than 93,000 public comments — an enormous volume compared with other regulatory plans.

• Axios reviewed dozens of the comments and found overwhelming opposition.
• The comment period is open through Monday. The agency says it intends to finalize the rule in time for it to take effect Oct. 1.

Zoom in: OMB's stated intent is to "improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for federal awards across the federal government," but critics argue the proposal would instead politicize the grant review process and have a destabilizing impact on scientific research.

• It also would give federal agencies more authority to terminate grants, including those that "no longer [effectuate] program goals, federal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination."

Where they're saying: Pharmaceutical companies and biotechs in particular are warning about the downstream consequences of the OMB proposal, which follows months of industry angst over FDA decision-making.

• "The proposed rule risks undermining the very foundation that has made the United States the global leader in biomedical research," advocacy group No Patient Left Behind wrote in a letter signed by dozens of biotech executives and investors.

"The proposed changes to research funding decisions could introduce a level of unpredictability that would weaken the scientific ecosystem," PhRMA spokesperson Alex Schriver said.

Keep reading

The administration is also proposing to let people claiming injuries from COVID-19 vaccines or therapeutics collect compensation through a streamlined legal process without having to sue.

Why it matters: The HHS plan, projected for November, is another test of the White House's willingness to accommodate vaccine controversy in an election year.

• Anti-vaccine advocates have long argued that the existing system for vaccine compensation claims excludes too many vaccine injuries, leaving alleged victims unable to pursue compensation.

Driving the news: The proposal, currently under review by the White House budget office, would create a table of injuries caused by approved COVID treatments "based on compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence."

• If an injury or death falls within a specified timetable and meets other criteria, the government would presume it was directly caused by the treatment.

Friction point: There's concern that officials under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could add loosely defined or speculative injuries to the list, which in turn could have a chilling effect on government-funded vaccine research.

• "A compensation table should not be converted into a vehicle for validating unsupported injury narratives," said a memo by Richard Hughes, a partner at Epstein, Becker & Green who's led legal efforts to pause some of the administration's most sweeping vaccine policy changes.
• HHS didn't respond to a request for comment.

Efforts in Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma to tighten state oversight of fertility services could make in vitro fertilization a political target and encroach on personal medical decisions, a group of physicians wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Why it matters: An overwhelming majority of Americans support access to assisted reproductive services, yet the field remains a flashpoint for anti-abortion conservatives.

• A 2024 Alabama Supreme Court decision on the legal status of frozen embryos created through IVF triggered a national debate and raised questions about whether clinics could be held liable for their destruction.

Driving the news: Legislative proposals that Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma considered over the past two years would impose new reporting requirements for providers using assisted reproductive technology.

• The text of the bills was based on model legislation from the Heritage Foundation, the authors wrote.
• Arkansas' proposal would have defined "life" as beginning at the moment of fertilization and required fertility clinics to disclose patients' reasons for discarding embryos.
• It also sought to define infertility as "a symptom of an underlying disease or condition" despite medical consensus that infertility is a disease in itself.

Critics have said that language could help expand access to "restorative reproductive medicine" and natural conception methods while potentially reducing access to IVF.

More here

🥼 The World Health Organization projects that cancer incidence will rise about 67% globally by 2050 and disproportionately affect lower-income countries. (WashPost)

💼 More workers are taking mental health leave to avoid burning out or worse. Employers say the number of absences is becoming hard to manage. (Bloomberg)

💉 The percentage of U.S. adults taking GLP-1 drugs for weight loss has risen to 11%, up significantly from 3% in 2024. (Gallup)