Right. The deeper issue is that the regulation increases PRESIDENTIAL control of science.
And *that* is the major break from the decades of NIH success, where Congress via legislation set NIH priorities and the president mostly stayed out of it.
But: /1 🧵
Mark Histed
Over the last few days, there has been a lot of discussion about the proposed regulation to increase political oversight of grantmaking. Some have argued this represents increased politicization of science. As someone who studies the politics of science, I think that's the wrong argument to make. 🧵
Sweeping proposed rule, now open for comments, would also restrict foreign collaborations and remove federal funding for open-access fees
