Ranking member @lofgren.house.gov had some especially biting words: She said the open-access transition has caused for-profit publishers to lose the "overpriced subscriptions they long depended on for their massive profits, so they are implementing extortionist" fees instead.
Lawmakers diverge on how to fix this. The Trump admin's 2027 budget proposes a ban on using federal funds for high publishing fees and subscriptions.
Democrats warn this is a "sledgehammer" that could hurt research integrity, while Republicans argue the current model wastes taxpayer dollars.
The root of the problem? A 'publish or perish' academic culture that incentivizes quantity over quality, witnesses testified.
This pressure has fueled a booming market for fraudulent 'paper mills', which are now using generative AI to mass-produce fake science, they said.
In a rare show of unity, both R and D US lawmakers agree: the scientific publishing industry needs reform.
Lawmakers are worried about the literature being flooded with 'AI slop' and the high open-access fees that some publishers charge.
Read more @nature.com on this week's House Science hearing
“We scientists are used to sticking to our knitting. But I began realizing that science needed defending,” says @samwang.bsky.social.
@nature.com talked to researchers running for office who say the "science is above politics" era is a failed business model.
The numbers back up this shift. 314 Action, a PAC supporting Dem scientists, typically receives about 250 applications in an election cycle.
This year? They received more than 700 —nearly triple their usual volume. The exodus from the lab to the ballot box is unprecedented. 📊👇
“We scientists are used to sticking to our knitting. But I began realizing that science needed defending,” says @samwang.bsky.social.
@nature.com talked to researchers running for office who say the "science is above politics" era is a failed business model.
The president's budget request is out. The process for funding federal agencies in 2027 has begun. What's a science journalist to do?
Register for our chat with @maxkozlov.bsky.social, @alesszimm.bsky.social, and @virginiagewin.bsky.social, coming up on 4/30.
connector.casw.org/event/follow...
Straight from the horse's mouth:
If Trump's proposed $5B cut to NIH were enacted in FY27, the number of new NIH research grants would drop **47%**
To be clear, this is from a document justifying the request. It's what they *want*. They think this is good.
officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY27/br...
Ditto - I'm all ears. You can stay anonymous. My Signal is mkozlov.01.
Academic bad actors often jump to a new job mid-investigation to hide misconduct, or sign non-disclosure pacts. A new proposal suggests a national database, like the one for doctors, to track academic fraud. With the kind of data fraud AI is going to unlock, it might not be a bad idea.
#AcademicSky
Should there be a database of scientists who fabricate data or harass others?
That's what two research policy experts propose to prevent those scientists from evading accountability.
Would this this centralized, secret list would solve the problem? Read more about the debate in @nature.com.
On Monday this week, as four humans flew around the far side of the Moon, Nature correspondent Alexandra Witze sat at the heart of the Artemis II mission’s science operations. Here's what she saw.
go.nature.com/4dE5gpv
Another big surprise contained in today's budget proposal: A government wide ban on using federal funds for "expensive" scientific publishing.
This shows the issue is a “broader conversation happening across the government” beyond just the NIH, says @csmarcum.bsky.social.
BREAKING: In response to huge cuts in Trump's budget request, NSF is shuttering its SBE directorate. Staff will be transferred to other parts of the agency and "grants that align with Administration priorities" will be maintained.
That & more w/ @maxkozlov.bsky.social & @edwrdchen.bsky.social
Every story has a quote left on the cutting room floor.
For this one, it's this:
Me: The U.S. has sequenced 1000 measles genomes from our outbreak.
Virologist @eddieholmes.bsky.social: "This is 2026! There shouldn't be 1000 measles genomes. That's disastrous."
kffhealthnews.org/news/article...
The #ArtemisII crew has launched on their way to the Moon. Read what they'll do next and what is up with NASA's Moon base plans:
www.nature.com/articles/d41... 🧪🔭
Marc Andreessen Sergey Brin Safra Catz Michael Dell Jacob DeWitte Fred Ehrsam Larry Ellison David Friedberg Jensen Huang John Martinis Bob Mumgaard Lisa Su Mark Zuckerberg
Inbox: Trump is announcing the new PCAST membership. It is dominated by CEOs and includes only one academic scientist, John Martinis.
OMB always reviews agencies' plans for how they will spend their money before issuing apportionments.
But this year agencies didn't automatically get a portion of their funds right away once the spending bill was signed, as we reported last month. They had to wait till the review was complete.
I will note the timing of this apportionment is interesting. It came the night before Bhattacharya was slated to testify before the House Appropriations Committee, where he likely would have been grilled much harder on the funding delays had the apportionment not been approved.
Yes, confirming reports that OMB has processed its full-year apportionment to NIH, giving the agency the ability to obligate funds from the spending bill signed into law on Feb 3!
From what I can tell, there are no footnotes that would indicate OMB is further delaying the process.
Saying it loudly for the folks in the back:
Cuts to announcements of funding opportunities are NOT the same thing as cuts to funding.
I've covered funding cuts, and will continue to do so, but for the most part* this issue is separate.
*Some NOFOs have funding tied to them and have been delayed.
Maren is our new senior multimedia editor who's taken on the big task of launching our TikTok presence - we're so lucky to work with her!
Big news: @nature.com has finally launched its TikTok page!
Check out my colleagues Maren Hunsberger with a deep dive on artificial lungs and @shamini.bsky.social talking about an acoustic robot so small it could swim around inside your body.
Follow us for much more content to come 🫶
Redditor user Ntroepy asks: Thank you - excellent article. I had a few followup questions: The change appears to require White House–appointed officials to approve funding calls alongside the existing scientific review structure. In your reporting, how concerned are scientists that this introduces political influence into what has traditionally been a peer-driven process? Are there specific research areas people worry could be deprioritized as a result? Your article focuses on changes to how funding is allocated, but says less about the total NIH budget. Do the experts you interviewed see these changes as a strategic shift or a way to cut overall spending? What are scientists and policy experts saying privately about this shift that didn’t make it into the article? Which areas of research are most likely to benefit from this change, and which are most at risk of losing support?
My response: Thanks for reading! All great questions. Very worried. Funding calls for disfavored research (eg anything 'DEI' related) were among the first to go. There are many strategic ways to cut overall spending, but this is probably not going to be the main way, unless all funding calls are shut down. Still, there are certain funding calls (RFAs) that have funds set aside for them. So if they continue to be delayed, agency staff will have little time to handle the review for those applications and get the money out the door before hte funds expire. Other problems will likely be a bigger factor this year: OMB withholding NIH's apportionment for 43 days, the record-long shutdown, and a lack of NIH personnel to process awards). Reasonable minds can disagree on what the balance of investigator-initiated vs solicited applications looks like. That's a good conversation to be having, scientists say. But what ideally would help to guide the conversation is some quantitative data that support this abrupt move -- that broad unsolicited calls are indeed more efficient and spur more innovation, as the NIH has said they are. (NIH did not respond to my query about this.) The shift toward broad, unsolicited grants will likely benefit foundational biology, high-risk "edge science," and well-established labs capable of competing for unrestricted funds. The rollback of targeted funding threatens to stall translational drug development and massive clinical networks that rely on top-down agency coordination. Research into rare diseases and health equity is also highly vulnerable, as the protective silos and specific mandates that historically supported these fields are dismantled. And early-career scientists risk being squeezed out of the system, as the loss of dedicated funding avenues forces them to compete directly against veteran researchers for the same dollars.
A Redditor asked good questions about the story.
1) How concerned are scientists that this introduces more political influence?
2) Will these changes cut overall spending?
3) What didn’t make it into the article?
4) What research areas are most likely to win and lose from this change?
My answers ⬇️
🚨 Want to work at @nature.com with me? We have an ultra-rare opening on my team of reporters.
This reporter, based in NYC or DC, would cover physical sciences, energy, environment, Al and policy.
You'd get to work with some of the most talented editors in the biz! DM w/ any Qs.
Apply by March 20!
To be clear: If you funnel thousands of scientists into a massive, broad grant pool, but use "agency priorities" or geography to decide who actually gets the money, it's true that bottom-up science becomes top-down quickly
Both are true: fewer targeted NOFOs, more political influence on grants
(unless you work on climate change or racial disparities or LGBTQ health or…)
Part of the drop in NOFOs in that they are now screened by NIH and HHS leadership, and the White House OMB.
This has led to delays in NOFOs for programs and research areas, such as diabetes, that Congress has directed the agency to fund.