There is this. The problem is, fundamentally, any program requesting money from the government becomes a political football. So the NSF or NIH programs are open to scrutiny. That part is fine.
Pulling lawyer tricks to selectively (mis)quote? Not so fine.
Its bad enough when AGW activists incorrectly opine that the science is settled, and make a mockery of those with the temerity to question the “settled” science. Its just as bad when the partisans in government misuse grant information to attack small programs as being wasteful, without a deeper understanding of the context and value of these programs. In both cases, the further misrepresentation of an incorrect statement of facts compounds the problem, and is inexcusable, no matter whom is doing it.
Oversight and review of programs should happen. And programs need to justify their existence. Thats our money being spent. I’d strongly urge that all program managers work with the grantees and others to have a simple, accessible, 1 paragraph discussion to explain the benefit to the taxpayers, of each program. Why its useful, what it does, how it helps, and where the money will be spent. Keep it simple. Make this a pre-requisite to getting programs funded.
That is, unless you enjoy being used as a political football.