Why you should care about the shakeup at NIH: Sean Morrison, Ken Covinsky, Stacy Fischer

Emergency Podcast! Our guests Sean Morrison, Ken Covinsky, and Stacy Fischer believe that you should care deeply about the proposed shakeup at the National Institutes of Health.  Major proposed rules changes at the Office of Management and Budget, would affect a huge range of government grants, from Headstart to Transportation to the National Science Foundation, as well as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the subject of today's podcast. You dear listeners should all care.  You should care because you care for older adults, or you're a researcher who studies palliative care, or you're a chaplain who visited with the family of a patient who died today.  You should care because these rule changes are so sweeping that they would remove standard components of the scientific review process and instead put them in the hands of political appointees. You should care because if rules like this were in place in the 1980s, we might not have developed treatments to stop the HIV/AIDS epidemic.  You should care because if these rules go into effect we will not be able to work with researchers in other countries studying outbreaks of Ebola or Hauntavirus.  You should care because these rules silence federal research into groups of people we care for daily. And if you're not a researcher, your voice is even more important here.  As Sean says, researchers who protest these proposed rule changes might come across as self-serving.  Clinicians who are not researchers -  who can say that these rules will negatively impact the science that improves care of older adults living with chronic conditions and their families - your voices may resonate even more. What can you do? Most of these rule changes are open for public comment here until July 13, 2026.  Every comment will be read and requires a response.  It's ok to respond anonymously.  Personalized stories matter more than form responses. Tips: 1: Say (or just describe to keep anonymous) who you are and why you are qualified to comment. Telling the story of how patients and families you care for or study is enough.  Get your partner and parents to respond too.  Simply being a concerned citizen is perfectly fine. 2: List the exact provision #s that concern you, and explain what they would do. You do not need to quote the rule directly. Just explain what you understand it to mean in plain terms. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205); Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d)); Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason (§200.340);  DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300);  Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220);  Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432);  Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461) 3: Explain the concrete harm. What would happen to your patients and their families if this provision takes effect? 4: Closing: State clearly what you want OMB to do. This can be as simple as: "I urge OMB to withdraw these specific provisions: §200.340, §200.202, §200.205." or "I urge OMB not to finalize this rule." Submit your comment in opposition here: The deadline is July 13, 2026.  You can also email your congressperson or senator.   Times they are a changin'.