AIBS Comments Urge NSF Not to Align Grants Guidance with Proposed OMB Rule
 
AIBS has submitted comments on the National Science Foundation's (NSF) draft Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA), the document that would replace the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG 24-1) and govern how every NSF proposal is prepared, reviewed, and managed. AIBS welcomed much of the redesign: the topic-based organization, the plainer language, the removal of obsolete material. The central objection was that the draft is written to align with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance, a rule that is not final. Comments on that proposal closed on July 13, and OMB has not issued a final rule.
 
As the comments put it: “Guidance that assumes the outcome of that rulemaking would treat the public comment now before OMB as a formality, and would carry into NSF's own policies the features of that proposal most damaging to American science—political review in place of scientific merit, awards that can end when priorities shift, and new limits on how findings are shared.”
 
The letter identified several specific areas of concern, among them provisions that would allow political review of funding decisions, termination standards that could shift whenever the underlying regulation is amended without NSF proposing the change, a Summary of Changes that says publication costs are disallowed while the guides themselves treat them as allowable, and Dangerous Gain of Function provisions already overtaken by the government-wide policy issued on July 28.
 
AIBS asked NSF to withhold every provision that depends on the proposed rule, to retain current policy in the interim, and if and when OMB issues a final rule, to re-propose the affected sections for public comment.
 
Read the full comments.
 
 
NSF Announces New Funding Opportunities; BIO to Host Virtual Office Hour
 
On August 17, the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced 12 new notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs) providing more than $1.5 billion for foundational research across science and engineering. According to NSF, the opportunities introduce a more flexible, portfolio-based approach to grantmaking: researchers may request awards of up to five years of support for long-term, ambitious research questions, and NSF is encouraging greater use of its existing rapid, short-term grant mechanisms to quickly test and de-risk novel ideas.
 
NSF Acting Director Brian Stone said the agency will use a “wider range of R&D funding mechanisms … to surface unconventional proposals that may not advance through traditional consensus-driven review panels.”
 
“The new solicitations are shorter, fewer in number and easier to navigate, opening NSF's funding opportunities to a broader cross-section of the nation,” NSF stated, adding that the changes advance the agency's ongoing efforts to reduce paperwork burden. The opportunities also emphasize “bold, paradigm-challenging inquiry,” interdisciplinary connections, and projects that “harness artificial intelligence, advanced computation and automation to make qualitatively new science possible.” The Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) is among the five directorates participating in the new funding initiative, through its newly released Core Research in Biological Sciences (BIO Core) solicitation.
 
In an August 18 newsletter, BIO Directorate Head Theresa Good highlighted the BIO Core solicitation, which replaces the core program solicitations in BIO's former divisions of Environmental Biology, Integrative Organismal Systems, and Molecular and Cellular Biosciences. BIO Core will support “foundational, curiosity-driven, use-inspired or interdisciplinary research across all areas of biology,” including research previously supported through legacy programs. Rather than asking applicants to identify the best program fit, NSF will sort submissions centrally and assign them to the appropriate review unit. Good also encouraged researchers to pursue work at the intersection of biology and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.
 
Good specifically pointed to two recent AI-related opportunities: NSF’s Genesis Mission Dear Colleague Letter, which highlights opportunities to use and develop AI for biological research, and a cross-directorate solicitation focused on making existing scientific datasets more accessible and ready for AI-driven analysis. She also noted that most BIO funding opportunities have no deadlines, encouraging researchers to submit proposals when their ideas are ready.
 
Science reported that NSF's new research solicitations raise concerns about substantially lower funding levels for core disciplines. BIO's solicitation calls for spending $280 million across its three core areas—Foundations of Life, Living Systems, and Bioinnovation and Infrastructure—compared with $640 million spent in 2023. Science noted that the 12 new solicitations cover only five of NSF's eight directorates and that the $1.5 billion they represent is only a fraction of the $8.8 billion NSF currently spends on academic research and training; the announcement made no mention of the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences or STEM Education directorates. NSF says additional opportunities will be posted. Scientists remain concerned that the new funding structure—shaped by new rules requiring prior approval from the White House—could result in significantly less support for investigator-driven basic research and shift resources toward administration priorities such as AI, quantum information science, and large consortia involving industry partners.
 
BIO is holding its next monthly virtual office hour on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, from 1:00-2:00 PM ET, where program directors will describe and answer questions about the newly issued funding opportunities. Register here.
 
 
NIH Seeks Input on Proposed Changes to Grant Peer-Review Outcome Reporting
 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking public feedback on a proposal to change how the agency reports the results of peer review for research grant applications. Under the proposed approach, NIH would stop providing applicants and NIH program officials with the numerical overall impact scores and percentile rankings currently used to help assess applications, instead placing proposals into one of three broad categories.
 
The proposal is part of NIH’s Unified Funding Strategy, announced in November 2025, which directs NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices (ICOs) to consider peer-review outcomes alongside factors such as agency and institute priorities, strategic plans, available funding, workforce considerations, and the broader research portfolio, rather than relying on fixed funding “paylines” or cutoffs based primarily on numerical scores. NIH says the change is intended to ensure that peer-review information is considered “in its entirety” and to reduce the emphasis placed on scores that may not precisely distinguish among applications.
 
Currently, NIH’s peer-review process produces a final overall impact score based on the scores assigned by voting members of a review panel. Applicants, NIH program staff, and the relevant advisory council receive the score along with written critiques and other review information. Program staff use the scores, percentile rankings when applicable, and the written critiques to develop funding recommendations for institute leadership.
 
Under the proposed system, applications would instead be placed into three categories: “most competitive” for applications in the top 25% based on final overall impact scores; “competitive” for those in the 26th to 50th percentiles; and “not discussed” for applications in the bottom 50% or applications that are not discussed by the review panel. NIH would continue to calculate numerical scores internally for purposes of assigning applications to categories, but the final scores and percentile rankings would not be disclosed to applicants, applicant institutions, NIH program staff, ICO leadership, or advisory councils. Written reviewer critiques and, for discussed applications, the resume of discussion would continue to be provided.
 
NIH argues that the change would elevate the role of substantive peer-review assessments by encouraging funding officials to focus on reviewers’ comments rather than treating numerical scores as a precise measure of scientific merit. The agency also notes that similar “binning” approaches are used by other major research funders, including the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and Department of Agriculture.
 
The proposal has nevertheless raised concerns within the research community. Critics question whether eliminating the numerical scores would reduce transparency and make it more difficult for investigators to assess their prospects for funding. Scores currently provide researchers with an early indication of how an application performed and can inform decisions about laboratory staffing, research planning, and whether to revise and resubmit a proposal.
 
The proposal also comes amid broader changes to NIH’s grantmaking policies, including efforts to move away from traditional paylines and give NIH institutes greater discretion in determining which applications to fund. Some researchers and former NIH officials are concerned that shifting more authority to institute officials could make funding decisions less closely tied to peer review, particularly in the context of a proposed OMB rule that would give political appointees greater authority over federal research grant decisions. Others acknowledge that numerical scores can create a misleading sense of precision because reviewers may assign substantially different scores to the same application, and research has raised questions about how well peer-review scores predict eventual scientific outcomes.
 
NIH is requesting comments on the proposed changes to reporting peer-review outcomes. The agency emphasizes that the RFI is for planning purposes and does not itself establish a new policy. Comments can be submitted electronically by October 13, 2026.
 
 
Lawsuit Challenges DHS Rule to Limit International Student Visas to Four Years
 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is facing a legal challenge to its new rule ending the longstanding “duration of status” framework for international students and exchange visitors. Beginning September 15, 2026, new F-1 and J-1 visa holders will generally be admitted for the length of their program, up to a maximum of four years. Students needing additional time would have to apply for an extension or seek readmission, while the standard post-completion departure period for F-1 students would be reduced from 60 days to 30 days.
 
The changes could particularly affect graduate and Ph.D. students whose programs often exceed four years. On August 18, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, several higher education organizations and labor unions filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Massachusetts seeking to block the rule and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The complaint argues that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by inadequately assessing the rule’s costs and benefits, responding to public comments, considering alternatives, and justifying the changes.
 
The plaintiffs contend that the new requirements will create significant administrative burdens and uncertainty for international students and the institutions that support them, potentially disrupting academic and professional plans and making U.S. colleges and universities less attractive to global talent. The rule is currently scheduled to take effect September 15, although the requested preliminary injunction could delay implementation while the legal challenge proceeds.
 
 
DOJ Finds Three NSF STEM Education Programs Unconstitutional
 
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that three National Science Foundation (NSF) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education programs are unconstitutional because they use race- or sex-based eligibility criteria.
 
The August 12 opinion from DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel says NSF may no longer administer the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation, Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate, or Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs. Together, the programs account for about $104 million of the $938 million Congress appropriated for NSF STEM education in FY 2026. DOJ said NSF may not reprogram the funds, but may treat the amounts as residual funds within its broader STEM education appropriation.
 
NSF had asked DOJ to review nine STEM education programs. DOJ found four—including the Graduate Research Fellowship Program, Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, and Advancing Informal STEM Learning—to be constitutional, while two others, Advanced Technological Education and ADVANCE, can continue if NSF removes specified race- or sex-based provisions. For example, DOJ said ADVANCE could support sex-neutral activities that may benefit women but could not fund programs restricted to women.
 
The opinion comes amid broader efforts by the Administration to eliminate or restrict federal programs that use race or sex in eligibility or outreach, and NSF has not yet said how it plans to proceed with the affected programs.
 
 
AIBS Joins APS in NSF Forward Initiative to Seek Community Input
 
The American Physical Society (APS) has launched NSF Forward, an initiative to develop recommendations and legislative proposals to strengthen and modernize the National Science Foundation (NSF) ahead of the 120th Congress.
 
AIBS is formally partnering with APS on this effort and encourages members across all scientific disciplines, career stages, and types of institutions to contribute their perspectives.
 
The initiative asks two questions:

1. What does NSF do well that you would like to ensure is maintained?
2. What should NSF stop doing, change or do differently, or start doing?

Members can share their input through the NSF Forward survey to help ensure that the perspectives of the broader scientific community inform recommendations for NSF’s future.
 

Action Alert: Call & Write Your Members of Congress About the OMB Grants Rule
 
The public comment period on the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket OMB-2026-0034) closed on July 13. The response from the scientific community was substantial, and AIBS thanks everyone who submitted comments, shared analysis, or urged colleagues to act.
 
That was an important step. It was not the last one.
 
Almost half a million comments were filed, and those that have been publicly posted are overwhelmingly opposed. OMB is under no obligation to change course, and the administration has indicated that it intends to finalize the rule this fall.
 
The Senate’s continuing resolution includes a provision that would block OMB from implementing the proposed rule through December 11, but the measure has not yet been enacted and the House’s version does not include the provision. Even if enacted, the Senate provision would provide only a temporary reprieve, making constituent outreach critical both now and in the months ahead.
 
Why Congress, and Why Now
This represents a major overhaul of the rules governing every federal grant. Congress authorizes federal programs and appropriates the funds that support them. The proposed rule would shift greater control over how those funds are awarded and managed toward the executive branch and away from the merit-based processes Congress has long supported.
 
The Senate’s continuing resolution creates an important opportunity to delay implementation of the OMB rule, but it does not resolve the underlying concerns. Congress needs to hear from constituents now—both to preserve the Senate provision in the immediate term and to address the rule more permanently.
 
The timing is particularly important. Members of Congress are in their districts and states for most of August, when they are often easier to reach—in person, at a town hall, or through a district office.
 
How to Take Action

• Get up to speed. Spend a few minutes with the AIBS resource page on the proposed rule. It includes AIBS’s formal comments to OMB, a number of helpful summaries of what the rule would change, external analyses, and a shareable one-pager designed to be emailed to a congressional office or printed and handed to a staffer you meet with.
• Call your members of Congress. Look them up and call the office using the phone script in the provided toolkit. If you reach voicemail, leave the message — it still gets logged.
• Email. Use our editable template letter to send a message to your Representative and both Senators. Personalize the letter — a specific example from your lab, museum, field station, or department is worth more than any argument we can supply. And if you submitted comments to OMB, you can share those with their offices too.
• Meet in district. Request a meeting with district staff, or attend a town hall and ask about the rule directly. Print the AIBS one-pager and leave it behind. If you can host a visit to your institution, offer it — seeing federally funded research firsthand is persuasive in a way that email is not.

The Toolkit

• Template letter to send via email — editable, to personalize with your own examples
• Phone script — what to say, what to ask, and what to do when you get voicemail
• AIBS one-pager — attach to an email, or print for meetings

This rule would outlast the administration that wrote it. The mechanisms it would put in place could be used by any administration to reshape the nation’s research enterprise for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific merit. That is worth a few minutes of your time.


AIBS Launches Diana Wall Graduate Student Publication Excellence Award
 
AIBS has launched the Diana Wall Graduate Student Publication Excellence Award, an annual award honoring the late biodiversity scientist and former AIBS President Diana Wall by recognizing outstanding scientific communication and research by early-career scientists. The award is open to master’s and PhD students who were registered graduate students when they submitted a peer-reviewed article published in BioScience during the preceding calendar year and who served as the lead author.
 
The award recognizes students who demonstrate the ability to synthesize complex biological concepts for a broad scientific audience. Up to four recipients will each receive a $2,500 stipend, an Author Spotlight in BioScience and on AIBS digital platforms, and an open-access publication voucher for a future BioScience submission.
 
Learn more and apply for the award.


Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
 
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is offering its popular professional development program to help scientists and students hone their written communication skills to increase the power of their message.
 
Writing for Impact and Influence provides practical instruction and hands-on exercises that will improve the participant’s general writing proficiency. The program will provide participants with the skills and tools needed to compose scientific press releases, blog posts, memoranda, and more, with a focus on the reader experience and the appropriate use of modern writing tools, such as ChatGPT. Each product-oriented session will have an assignment (deadlines are flexible), with feedback from the instructor.
 
The course is interactive, and participants are encouraged to ask questions and exchange ideas with the instructor and other participants. Each session is also recorded and shared with all participants to accommodate scheduling conflicts.
 
Who Should Take the Course?

• Individuals interested in furthering their professional development by augmenting their writing skills.
• Graduate students and early-career professionals interested in increasing their marketability to employers.
• Individuals interested in more effectively informing and influencing segments of the public, supervisors, policymakers, reporters, organizational leaders, and others.

The course consists of six weekly 90-minute online modules conducted live and subsequently archived online for participant review. The course will begin on Friday, September 11, 2026, with subsequent course sessions held weekly on Fridays, through October 16.  Individuals who actively participate in and complete the full course will receive a certificate recognizing that they have completed a nine-hour professional development course on business writing for scientists.
 
Learn more and register.
 

Short Takes

• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has begun declining or sending back grant applications whose primary purpose is to inform policymakers or legislators, according to Nature. The change follows an internal determination that policymakers are no longer considered “mission relevant” to NIH, potentially limiting funding for research examining how laws and other public policies affect health. The shift could reduce evidence available to policymakers about the health consequences of government decisions.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) has finalized changes to its regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Effective August 4, the rule removes provisions that prohibited practices with an unintentional disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin, aligning NSF’s rules with the text of Title VI and a recent Department of Justice rule. The changes also remove provisions covering certain employment practices and examples of disparate-impact liability. NSF says the revised rules prohibit intentional discrimination but will no longer allow the agency to hold federal funding recipients responsible for unintentional disparate impacts.
• The Department of Energy has updated its scientific integrity directive to protect consideration of “alternative scientific opinions” and the free flow of “different or dissenting viewpoints,” while requiring DOE personnel and covered contractors to integrate the nine tenets of Gold Standard Science into their scientific and technical work.
• New data from the Association of American Universities (AAU) show that 55 research universities admitted, on average, 15% fewer doctoral students for fall 2026 than the previous year, reflecting growing uncertainty around federal research funding. AAU warns that continued decline in PhD enrollment could weaken the pipeline of scientists and engineers needed to sustain U.S. research, innovation, and global competitiveness. Another AAU survey of Ph.D. students and postdocs found that their likelihood of staying in academia, fell from 66% to 44% within a 6-month period.
• President Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order directing federal health officials to recommend a narrower set of childhood vaccinations and to explore separating combination vaccines into individual shots, beginning with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Researchers have raised concerns that separating vaccines could delay children’s protection and increase costs, while the order itself does not have the legal force to immediately change the vaccination schedule. Implementing the proposed changes would also require vaccine manufacturers to produce single-disease vaccines, a process that could take years.

From the Federal Register

The following items appeared in the Federal Register from August 10 to 21, 2026.
 
Agriculture

• Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Animal Care; Standards for Birds Not Bred for Use in Research Under the Animal Welfare Act

Commerce

• Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement
• Public Meeting of the National Sea Grant Advisory Board
• Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the NOAA Science Advisory Board (SAB)
• The 52nd Meeting of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force

Environmental Protection Agency

• Nominations to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP); Request for Comments
• Nominations Request for the Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Executive Office of the President

• Executive Order 14420: Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans

Health and Human Services

• Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee

Interior

• Agency Information Collection Activities; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports--Migratory Birds