What does ‘gold standard science’ mean for faculty research?

Collage by Trinity Johnson, Photographer

Research labs across the country are recalibrating as the Trump administration reshapes the federal grant system. 

Last May, President Donald Trump’s administration issued the presidential directive Restoring Gold Standard Science. This could push partisan politics into funding decisions for research, changing how faculty research is conducted today. 

The executive order aims to regulate federal grant selection criteria based on the established principles of unbiased peer review, the absence of conflicts of interest and interdisciplinary collaboration, to name a few.  

Senior political appointees would review each grant before it’s awarded, rather than professionals in the field of study blocking awards that do not follow the administration’s beliefs.

Over the summer, the Office of Science and Technology Policy implemented the new policy guidelines. Public comments were open until mid-July, during which Chapman University faculty noted their concerns. 

Douglas Fudge, a professor in biological sciences, was one of them.  

“Giving political appointees the power to override peer review decisions would undermine the bedrock of our scientific institutions in the U.S.,” Fudge said. “I have not had any of my grants terminated, but many of my colleagues have for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the science they do or are proposing.” 

Martina Nieswandt, Chapman’s vice president of research, has been at the head of this issue for Chapman University faculty. 

“Some faculty might have had to explore different funding sources or programs within an agency,” she said. “With respect to cuts of federal funding, we had some funding cuts in Spring 2025 of approximately $900,000. Despite these cuts, we saw a 6% increase in federal award dollars in Fiscal Year 2025/2026.” 

Professor Peter Simi, one of the many faculty members affected by the grant terminations, opposes the integration of partisan politics into research.

“When you interject a clear partisan agenda into the equation, it's going to totally skew the research,” Simi said. 

The politicization of grants affects not only the research conducted but also the benefits that research provides to everyday Americans. These effects had a national impact. In Seattle, Washington, Dr. Sebastian Tong’s four years of addiction recovery research at the University of Washington School of Medicine (UW) were slashed. 

Initially awarded a $2.5 million federal grant, UW received nearly $1.4 billion in federal research support in 2025, accounting for approximately 80% of its total research funding.

His grant was one of 117 grants cut at AcademyHealth, a health research company, during the most recent round of cuts. 

This decision affects not only faculty nationwide but also Chapman students directly on a smaller scale. Four students under Simi’s research had to be laid off due to the grant terminations last year. 

“I had to fire those students,” Simi said. “I had no choice.” 

One of Simi’s research projects examining threats to public officials, which had previously been defunded, had its funding reinstated, allowing him to hire new undergraduate researchers.  

With the 2027 fiscal year starting in October, the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed overhaul of revisions has a targeted effective date of Oct. 1, 2026.  

Faculty researchers and professors across the country, including those at Chapman, are waiting for the decisions to be finalized to see how this could change the face of research forever.