WBEZ Chicago9%
‘Shell-shocked’ Chicago scientists raise alarm about federal overhaul of research grant funding 16%
By Elvia Malagón27%
7/8/2026, 10:30:00 AM
Keywords: Research Funding, Federal Grants, Scientific Research, Trump Administration, Dei, Womens Health, Grant Cancellations, Peer Review, Political Appointees, International Research, Anti American Values, Office Of Management And Budget, National Institutes Of Health, American Association For The Advancement Of Science, Northwestern University, University Of Illinois Chicago, American Public Health Association
BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Post Hoc (False Cause), and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.8% saturation with 298 hits. Analysis detected 2,910 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,772 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.7% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,516 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.60% of the article peer group.
After working for years in the pharmaceutical industry, Joseph Dominguez enjoyed the freedom to take on scientific research he found in an academic institution that had no commercial ties.
Dominguez finished his Ph.D. earlier this year after studying the role of innate immune cells in early ovarian cancer, which was funded through a federal grant for the past two years.
He considered continuing in academia, but will likely return to the private sector in part because of greater scrutiny from the government over funding for research, particularly women’s health, which has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration as “DEI-focused.”
“It’s just health sciences — women’s health, men’s health — it’s all very critical,” Dominguez said.
“They want to ban all DEI wording, ‘gender ideology.’
There have been professors who have been working on women’s health and ovarian cancer who have had their funding taken.
I can very much see scenarios where this will take away our funding.”
Dominguez, along with other researchers in Chicago, are mobilizing their peers to submit public comments ahead of a proposed rule they say would significantly change the country’s approach to funding science innovation and research.
The Office of Management and Budget is proposing a rule to overhaul guidance for federal financial assistance, which includes grants issued by the National Institutes of Health, and turn it into a rule.
It would go into effect as soon as Oct.
1.
What the Trump administration is proposing
The proposed “ Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance ” rule will make several changes to how the federal government manages funding for scientific research and other fields.
Here’s how the process would be impacted, according to experts and Chicago-based researchers.
Mid-stream grant cancellations: Grants could be terminated or suspended with little due process, said Joanne Padrón Carney with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The termination does not have to include evidence of noncompliance or fraud.
Causes for a termination include that a project no longer aligns with “Federal agency priorities, or the national interest.”
Inserting political appointees: Senior appointees would get a formal role in the grant review process rather than leaving it up to a peer review process, as was the practice.
Limits to international research: American scientists say it’s not uncommon to work with international researchers, but the proposed rule would restrict collaborations.
For example, one part says funds can’t go to “foreign entities” unless there’s an authorized statute or a “compelling reason.”
Anti-American denials: The proposed rule points to broad terms that studies must help the country restore “gold standard science” and that the work can’t be deemed “anti-American.”
Experts say the rule would allow funding denials if the institution where a researcher works is looked at as promoting “anti-American values.”
More than 82,000 people so far have submitted public comments, including at least three dozen that reference Chicago.
The comment period ends July 13.
In its summary of the rule, the Office of Management and Budget says it is proposing the changes to improve “transparency, accountability and oversight” of funds.
In addition, the government says it is seeking ways to reduce the misuse and waste of tax dollars.
But researchers in Chicago say the proposed rule would upend the scientific research enterprise that has been in place since World War II and has long been seen as the world’s most robust.
The new rule would give political appointees, rather than scientists, formal say over what research gets funded.
It would also allow for grants to be terminated mid-stream if they're not aligned with the executive branch’s priorities, and studies deemed “anti-American” would not be approved, among other changes.
Already, researchers have faced grant denials or delays as the Trump administration has made it increasingly difficult to secure federal funding over the last 18 months.
Some of those delays are because political appointees are already reviewing research grants, said Joanne Padrón Carney, the chief government relations officer for the D.C.-based American Association for the Advancement of Science.
“This proposed rule would kind of set in stone some of the activities that we have already been seeing in the past year and a half and make it very difficult to change,” Padrón Carney said.
The rule would turn what was previously guidance that federal agencies could modify into federal regulation, she said.
“It kind of codifies it, to have like a force of law across all in the entire federal government,” she said.
“This impacts all sectors of society, not just the research community.”
Risking abrupt grant terminations
Dr.
Ravi Kalhan, a Chicago-based pulmonary doctor and professor at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, might have thought twice about his career choice two decades ago if he had known how precarious federal funding would become.
Kalhan submitted a public comment ahead of the proposed rule implementation.
He is particularly worried about language in the proposal that says a grant could be terminated if it “is not effective at achieving program goals or Federal agency priorities, or that an agency otherwise determines is no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.”
Chicagoans rally at a Stand Up for Science rally to protest the Trump administration’s science policies and federal job cuts in March 2025 in the Loop.
Kalhan is currently leading federally funded research into lung health.
It includes establishing a cohort of healthy 25- to 35-year-olds and studying them long-term to see what factors, such as exposure, lifestyle or diet, contribute to developing chronic lung disease later in life.
“You can’t study the prevention of diseases that take a lifetime to develop if the research program can get canceled in six months or a year,” Kalhan said.
For now, Kalhan doesn’t think his research is at risk because the current administration has indicated it wants to prevent chronic disease.
“It seems like a waste to sort of invest all this time and energy in forming a cohort, for example, that we plan to follow for a long time and then deciding because it’s no longer a priority to study a condition or a factor in a condition that we are going to cancel that program,” Kalhan said.
“...
Terminating it before answers come about seems equally wasteful to me.”
Changes to peer review process
The new rule would add a political appointee’s opinion on the merits of a proposal into a process that has long been left to scientists.
Chicago-based researcher Timothy Koh says that will dramatically change the process and curtail progress in scientific research.
Now, researchers submit a proposal to be funded for three to five years, and it typically undergoes review by a panel of experts in that field that evaluate the science and if it could advance the field, Koh said.
The proposed rule calls for a senior appointee, named by the U.S. president, to review discretionary grants to ensure they are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.
Timothy Koh, a professor of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois Chicago, in his lab at the UIC Department of Family and Community Medicine in 2025.
Anthony Vazquez/Sun-Times
Koh worries inserting an appointee opens the door for funding poor science or potentially for corruption.
“We’ve come this far in science in the U.S. based on a system that is peer reviewed,” said Koh, a professor of kinesiology and nutrition at the University of Illinois Chicago.
“Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system that we have, trying to remove as much bias as possible is what the philosophy has been.
And this would just throw all that away.”
Carole LaBonne, a stem cell biologist and developmental biologist, said based on her experience with grants she interprets the proposal as allowing the appointee to weigh in before the funds are issued.
LaBonne said she and her peers worry that could mean a proposal could be denied if the appointee doesn’t agree with the field of study or because of the person’s affiliations or location.
The proposed rule also makes references to so-called “gold standard science,” but doesn’t define it, raising questions about what kind of research will get denied.
“They’ve inserted all these ways that they can terminate grants either to particular areas of research, particular investigators or particular universities, with no ability to push back on that in the [same] way that has been happening in the last year and a half,” said LaBonne, who is a professor at Northwestern University.
‘Shell-shocked’ community
The changes to funding that have already taken place have caused so much stress that some researchers are taking anxiety medications for the first time, LaBonne said.
“Every scientist that I know at every institution across every state is pretty much shell-shocked right now,” LaBonne said.
“We don’t view what we do as a job, it’s who we are.
In some sense it’s your identity that is being attacked.”
There are efforts to push back, said Dr.
Georges Benjamin, chief executive officer for the American Public Health Association.
His organization has challenged the Trump administration’s cuts to research grants in court, including those that were deemed to be part of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
“One of the reasons we’ve been so far successful is that they didn’t follow the rules,” Benjamin said, referring to one court ruling that initially determined NIH had improperly ended grants related to diversity efforts, though litigation continues.
“So now what they’re trying to do with this OMB rule is put in place all the illegal practices that they’ve been following and try to basically … do what they’ve been doing by basically saying, ‘Yeah, we have the right to do this through the regulatory process.’”
Joseph Dominguez is hesitant about staying in academia because of the restrictions the federal government is placing on research funding.
Manuel Martinez/WBEZ
Dominguez, has been wrapping up his Ph.D. thesis, which he hopes to submit to an academic journal.
In between, he’s been working with Stand Up for Science, a group formed last year in response to changes to scientific funding, to help get the word out about the new proposal and to encourage other scientists to submit a comment to the federal government about how it would impact their work.
“Many of us are scared, some of us are more vocal through social media,” Dominguez said.
“But it is very much important that everyone knows about it because science impacts not just the scientific community, but it impacts the current health care system and it’s going to impact the future health care system.”
Northwestern, UIC medical researchers reeling from Trump funding cuts
Speakers
7speakers47%attributed speech936writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageGeorges Benjamin
86 attributed words10% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.