Political appointees and peer review

22:53recommendations like your dad as you just mentioned would be advisory and not controlling. >> Okay. >> Right. Currently, they have the controlling what they say kind of goes. They're saying that's this more of just an opinion and we get to decide >> and and we being these political >> appointees, right? Who >> Great. Nice. >> Don't really have >> uh any scientific Yeah. >> background. Third, the government would have broader authority to end existing grants if officials determine they no longer advance the current agenda of whatever party controls the White House at that time in terms of the quote national interest. >> Okay. >> And then fourth, the proposal would impose major restrictions on

23:35international research collaborations with countries that are deemed to be national security risk. The fourth one, >> fourth one. I get >> that one has some some standing and you could argue the details there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, what is the argument from the White House, right? They're basically saying that they want to ensure that taxpayer money is lawfully, you know, executed on and that it's aligned with our priorities and there's no the favorite phrase of DC, waste, fraud, and abuse. >> Right? I don't think if you look at the grand scheme of the budget that scientific funding and grant funding is the biggest source of waste fraud abuse. But they argue that the peerreview process has become insular and the final

24:17responsibility should remain to politically accountable appointees. That's the argument being made for why this proposal is being place. And you know, in a in a vacuum, you would maybe say,