[40four]

Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:

“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… “

[SubiculumCode]

yes further down? Or did you stop there?

[40four]

I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently