Ominous incidents in the field of government scientific grants have aroused a flurry of concern and anxiety in the scientific community. Some see signs that the Bush administration and members of Congress are trying to reshape the national’s scientific research programs to conform to a moral code involving sexual practices, drugs and sexually transmitted disease.

Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reported last month that a study of AIDS transmission among gay men and prostitutes had come under special scrutiny by a congressional subcommittee and the Department of Health and Human Services. The article said that the program staff at the National Institutes of Health, which financed the study, had warned grantees to reword their applications to avoid such terms as “prostitutes,” “needle exchange,” “abortion,” “condom effectiveness,” “transgender” and “men who have sex with men.” The fear is that ideological watchdogs might mistake research for support or encouragement.

Last December, the Los Angeles Times reported that William R. Miller, a psychologist at the University of New Mexico, had been asked to join an advisory panel for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. While the appointment was pending, he got a telephone call from the office of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. That caller asked if Professor Miller favored faith-based initiatives and what he thought about needle-exchange programs, abortion and the death penalty for drug kingpins. Finally, had the professor voted for President Bush? He had not, and most of his other answers evidently didn’t pass muster either. He did not get the appointment. A department spokesman was quoted as saying that staffers do not ask such questions and that the particular staffer no longer worked for the department.

Some scientists worry that the peer-review system, regarded as a key aspect of the funding of American scientific research, may be in jeopardy. One fear is that the confidential peer groups that rate grant applications for scientific merit may be identified and exposed to scrutiny and pressure. Another is that the Institute Advisory Councils, which make a second-round appraisal of applications, may be salted with ideologically approved political appointees.

Finally, a current NIH study of administrative procedures that may be “outsourced” could include the entire peer-review process. A spokesman for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology says that its staff has so far seen no indication that peer review is being considered for privatization but is “concerned” and is “watching the situation.” The spokesman says the organization has “great respect” for the present system and would certainly make a study and have something to say about it if a change was proposed.

Ideologues of all stripes should take that warning to heart. Politics must have no place in the great American system of scientific research.