HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design
SubiculumCode
35 points
28 comments
June 03, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 93.1ms across 9,294 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants jordanpg · 119 pts · May 30, 2026 · 56% similar
- Proposed new US funding rules: We can cancel any grant at any time mhalle · 314 pts · May 30, 2026 · 55% similar
- U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators ceejayoz · 378 pts · May 22, 2026 · 51% similar
- Government grant-funded research should not be published in for-profit journals sito42 · 353 pts · March 04, 2026 · 48% similar
- The US slashed research for cancer, Alzheimer's, mental health – and more epistasis · 55 pts · March 13, 2026 · 48% similar
Discussion Highlights (6 comments)
sega_sai
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it."
maxfraud9000
This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?
ksajasdasj
TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government. In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.
40four
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines. Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph: “ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ” Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment. Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense? We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”. The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable. We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
vasapin
Aside from the couple of daft suggestions outlined in the article, this doesn't seem so bad. A mountain being made of a molehill, perhaps?
ChrisArchitect
Related: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511 What's Happening to Science in America https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687