Histed said in a later interview that this transparent, nonpolitical selection method isn’t confined to NIH: it’s a common practice at research institutions worldwide. He argued it has helped turn NIH into a scientific powerhouse: “That approach,” he said, “produced eighty years of remarkable scientific achievement.”
Members of Congress have noticed. In language attached to the current appropriations bill moving through Congress, lawmakers direct NIH “to maintain its longstanding practice of including external scientists and stakeholders” in the search process. (Agencies are expected to follow these Congressional directions, though they are not legally binding.) In late January, Diana DeGette, a Democratic representative from Colorado, introduced a bill that, according to a press release, would “Protect NIH From Political Interference” by, among other measures, limiting the number of political appointees at the agency.
Lauer, the former NIH grants chief, offered a wider historical perspective on the shifts. He described a longstanding tug-of-war between presidential administrations that push for greater political oversight of agencies and career officials and technical experts who resist that intrusion. From the viewpoint of politicians and their aides, Lauer said, “what they’ll argue — and I can see their point — is that increased political control makes the agency more responsive to voters and brings greater transparency and public accountability.”
Lauer acknowledged those potential benefits but warned of drawbacks as well: an increase in short-term decision-making, more volatile funding, and a risk of losing institutional expertise and competence.
Mark Richardson, a political scientist at Georgetown University who studies politicization and the federal bureaucracy, said his research shows a link between partisan disagreement over an agency’s role and efforts by administrations to assert control through appointees and staffing choices. Historically, NIH has aligned with agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that attract broad bipartisan agreement.
“What appears to be happening under the Trump administration is an expansion of political contest into these kinds of agencies,” Richardson said.
This article first appeared on Undark. Read the original article.
