Jay Novella

And again, that might be like, okay, more oversight.

Well, hold on.

The review would be done by senior political appointees or by people that they just simply choose.

And the proposal also says that grants should support the president's policy priorities when relevant.

Which is all code for they're going to pick what science gets funded, and it's going to be at the whim of the administration or at Trump's whim and not have anything to do with what scientists think should be researched.

It's Lysenkoism.

So the peer review process isn't going to disappear.

You know, the current system that the scientists are operating in, it's all there.

It's just going to lose power.

You know, scientists could still review grant proposals and they can make recommendations all they want.

But those recommendations are now only going to be advisory.

And the final authority is going to rest, you know, just heavily and clearly with agency leadership and political appointees.

So this is the key shift, and this is where they insert total control over future science funding.

Scientific proposals, I shouldn't have to say this, but scientific proposals should be evaluated mainly by people who understand the freaking science.

And based on merit.

Based on merit.

Yeah, it can't just be – but understanding the science is two words that are a mouthful.

It's a profound thing to say.

To clearly understand the science of any given scientific sphere, we're not talking about someone who's well-read on it.

We want people who really know it, understand it, can eat that stuff for breakfast.