Credit:
Hannah Gaber Photo
On May 29, the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a proposed rule on the regulation of federal financial assistance, which includes all federal grants and awards made by the federal government. This extensive proposed rule (over 400 pages) could significantly change how science is funded, conducted, communicated, and shared.
The stated intention of the proposed rule is to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal grants and awards. But some of the proposed changes run counter to those objectives. In some cases, significant policy and operational risks would impact the federal research enterprise by increasing political intervention with grant decisions, allowing policy alignment reviews before scientific peer review, and expanding agency discretion to suspend or terminate active awards without cause. It would also add to the already heavy administrative burden for researchers and institutions by requiring preapproval for conference participation, professional memberships, and scholarly journal publication costs.
The American Chemical Society closely reviewed the proposed rule and submitted a response articulating the misalignment with the stated objectives. In addition, our response highlights the potential impact on our nation’s ability to sustain its position as the global leader in science and technology and remain at the cutting edge of discovery. This leadership position has taken decades to build and has been the key driver of the country’s economic success since the end of World War II. Our full comment is available on the ACS website.
During the 45-day review period set by the OMB, ACS engaged scientists throughout our community to ensure awareness of the proposed rule. Our Government Affairs Office has led community engagement efforts—including direct communications to our members, Act4Chemistry Legislative Action Network alerts, and virtual office hours—to help chemistry community members understand the proposal and submit their own comments.
People working across academia, industry, and government, and at every career stage shared insights with us and directly with the OMB on how the proposed rule could affect the research ecosystems that support scientific discovery, communication, and collaboration. Concerns were shared about how the proposed changes could affect scientists’ ability to conduct and share research, participate in conferences, and engage with peers and collaborators. Many pointed to how provisions within the proposed rule may also affect daily research activities, access to professional opportunities, and overall participation in the scientific enterprise. Changes of this nature will undoubtedly have a negative impact on research productivity and success.
These potential impacts may be felt most acutely by early-career investigators, individuals working with constrained grant resources, and institutions with limited sources of discretionary funding. For these groups, access to professional opportunities, collaboration networks, and research visibility is closely tied to both productivity and career development.
“Concerns were shared about how the proposed changes could affect scientists’ ability to conduct and share research, participate in conferences, and engage with peers and collaborators.”
Across these discussions, a consistent theme emerged: while individual provisions address specific areas, the cumulative nature of these changes would impede the pace of scientific progress, sharing of findings, exchanging of ideas, and participation in professional gatherings—of which are foundational to a strong and innovative research ecosystem.
ACS will continue to engage with policymakers—specifically members of Congress and federal agency leadership—to support policies that align with our mission to advance scientific knowledge, empower a global community, and champion scientific integrity. We will also continue to work with our partners in other scientific associations to amplify these messages and to collaborate in meaningful ways.
I have personally been involved in the arena of federal sponsored research for almost 4 decades through my leadership roles at universities, research institutions, and professional organizations. These proposed rule changes are the most expansive, and potentially most harmful, as any I’ve seen. It is imperative that we all work together to provide clear, tangible examples of the negative impacts that may result.
For the latest on our advocacy activities, I invite you to visit www.acs.org/policy. To stay informed and weigh in on high-priority science policy issues, please consider joining the ACS Act4Chemistry Legislative Action Network, if you haven’t already done so. If you have other questions about advocacy issues or want to share your stories about science policy impacts on your research, please reach out to us at [email protected].
Views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of C&EN or ACS.
