Hello and welcome to the space policy edition of Planetary Radio.

I'm Casey Dreyer, welcoming you to the show that explores the policies and processes that enable space exploration.

This month, we have a slightly deeper dive or more bigger picture approach to a fundamental aspect of American scientific work and research,

which is a set of proposed rule changes to how the U.S. federal government manages grants that fund science.

Now, don't turn this off. Don't be afraid. This is actually a huge deal, so big that we are doing a last-minute

record here that is talking about unusually for us a very relevant topic. On May 29th, the White

House's Office of Management and Budget released a 400-page set of proposed rule changes that affect the entire gamut of how the United States distributes congressionally appropriated funds that enable fundamental scientific research.

We're talking about grants that fund NASA research, people who want to study data from the Mars rovers.

We're talking about people who operate missions.

We're talking about even beyond that to fundamental biomedical research, community block grants, housing assistance, everything in terms of what the government does.

The proposed rules are vast.

The changes are vast.

They egregiously, I believe, change fundamental aspects that restrict the idea of free inquiry and also the effectiveness of public investment in science, if nothing else, adding layers

of punishing bureaucracy, centralizing control, and using forms of financial intimidation

to restrict freedom of association and free speech. If this sounds hyperbolic, it reasonably does, but it's honestly, it's right there in the

page. The government claims procedural rules to cancel and terminate contracts or grants at any

moment for any reason without having to provide justification. They now would require political review instead of merit-based peer review of all grant awards and even grant opportunities.

That means intentionally, and this is specific, a partisan operator from the White House, whether it's this one or a future one, would have the say and actually be

encouraged to not defer to the merit-based review process and who to award grants to.

It actually would add risks and punishments of being in certain institutions, membership

organizations that the White House considers anti-American or against administration priorities.

It allows the immediate termination for associating or even speaking on issues unrelated to your grant.

...