An analysis of a torrent of public comments submitted on a White House proposal to change the way federal contracts and grants are doled out shows a widespread rebuke of the potential change by scientists and others.
The analysis, done by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with STAT, used a large language model to classify whether a comment was supportive or in opposition and to identify themes mentioned in comments. It found that about 95% were in opposition and just 1% supported the proposed changes to the “Uniform Guidance.” A total of 496,769 public comments were submitted before the deadline of Monday at midnight, and an analysis of the 52,322 comments that have been posted in full show an overwhelming rebuke of the proposal.
The substance of that proposal would bring about a fundamental change in the way that science is funded in the U.S., taking autonomy away from scientists and empowering the Trump administration to override the recommendations of peer reviewers, terminate grants at will, and exercise more latitude in the type of research federal agencies support. If finalized as written, it could codify the tumult and uncertainty that have defined the past year and a half for vast portions of the scientific enterprise.
