FABBS submitted comments in response to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule that would make sweeping and overwhelmingly negative changes to current practices across all federal agencies that govern grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of federal financial assistance. The rule, if finalized, would have damaging implications for individual researchers, scientific societies, universities, research institutions, hospitals, nonprofits, state and local governments, and other organizations that receive federal funding (see previous FABBS coverage).
According to the Regulations.gov website, 496,805 comments were submitted and 54,165 posted to the docket. However, there is some debate about the process for posting submitted comments, causing confusion about the considerable difference between those two figures. FABBS and others who have submitted comments, comfortably before the deadline, have yet to see them posted. Early analysis of the public comments indicate overwhelming opposition to the proposed rule. Commenters were clear in expressing the damage the changes could pose, on the individual level, as organizations, for universities, and more. There are a small number of positive comments, and many appear to be copied from a form letter.
Members of Congress have also weighed in on the proposal. The Association of Public & Land-grant Universities (APLU) is tracking congressional letters here. Among them, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote a letter to OMB Director Vought requesting an extension to the comment period (which was not granted) and for the withdrawal of portions of the rule that would be particularly harmful to rural communities and scientific research. Senator Jim Banks (R-IN) wrote a letter in support of the proposed rule. Despite circulating his letter to his Senate colleagues, he submitted the letter alone. In the House, Representatives Laura Gillen (D-NY) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) penned a bipartisan letter to Vought expressing significant concerns about the rule’s consequences, using cancer research as an example, and urging OMB to extend the deadline for public feedback and preserve merit-based review.
In our response, FABBS opposed the proposed rule in its entirety and focused objections around two themes: 1) the integrity of scientific review and approval process and 2) the ability to conduct and communicate science. A summary of our comments can be found at the end of the article. FABBS also contributed to the Friends of NIMH comments — in FABBS’ capacity as a founding co-chair — and signed the Friends of Friends letter. Early on, FABBS signed a letter requesting an extension of the comment period, though OMB Director Russell Vought publicly rejected that possibility in a House hearing (see FABBS article).
FABBS held a Zoom discussion in mid-June to help researchers and societies better understand the regulations. Following that discussion, FABBS created a toolkit with resources to assist in the preparation of comments, including templates for both individuals and groups.
FABBS will hold another discussion on July 24th at 1:00pm ET to provide an action plan to ensure comments get into the hands of key policymakers. Please register for the webinar here.
Summary of FABBS Comments
Compromises Integrity of Scientific Review and Approval Process
- Requiring political appointees to conduct pre-issuance review overrides peer review, injects subjectivity and bias, and undermines independent and evidence-backed scientific research.
- Allowing any administration to terminate grants would interfere with reliance interests and waste taxpayer funds.
- Removing due process protections for grantees is arbitrary and capricious.
- “Gold Standard Science” is undefined and too vague of a standard to enforce.
- Conducting broad risk review raises First Amendment concerns.
- Preventing federally-funded research from considering the disproportionate impact on specific populations undermines public health.
Undermines Ability to Conduct and Communicate Science
- Limiting allowable costs for grantees will restrict the dissemination of evidence-based research and serve as an obstacle to open access science.
- Restrictions on scientists’ ability to communicate about their findings will limit the impact of taxpayer-funded research and may infringe on researchers’ First Amendment rights.
- Incentivizing lower indirect costs devalues scientific merit in the review process.
- Broad restrictions on foreign collaboration will slow scientific innovation and reduce America’s competitiveness.
- Layering on additional requirements for grantees imposes unnecessary costs and administrative burdens.
- Allowing the federal government to join private lawsuits to block inappropriate spending will lead to frivolous lawsuits.
