Science Policy News from AIBS

AIBS Issues Statement, Requests Extension of Comment Period for Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule

On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposed rule that would make sweeping changes to federal financial assistance regulations. This is one of the most consequential proposed changes to the federal grants system in decades.

Among the most consequential provisions for scientists and research institutions, with relevant rule sections noted in parentheses:

Grant selection commandeered from merit review [200.202, 200.204, 200.205]: All federally funded programs must align with administration priorities and serve the "national interest"--terms that are not clearly defined. Grant competitions may be exempted from public notice requirements, so researchers may be unaware of available opportunities. Before any discretionary grant can be awarded, a senior political appointee must approve it; despite the neutral official title of this provision ("Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals"), this review screens for political compliance and empowers appointees to override independent peer reviewers.
Termination authority expanded and award stability undermined [200.208, 200.340]: Agencies could change the rules governing a grant after it has already been made, altering the conditions of research that is already underway. They would also be formally empowered to terminate or suspend active grants at any time if an award is deemed inconsistent with agency priorities or the "national interest"--codifying the legal basis for the stop-work orders and grant terminations researchers have experienced over the past year.
Content-based restrictions on what research can be funded [200.218, 200.300]: Federal funds could not be used for research grounded in disparate-impact frameworks (those examining whether policies or practices have unequal effects on different groups, regardless of intent) or for activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or "gender ideology." These restrictions are broadly and vaguely defined, creating uncertainty across a wide range of health, social science, and environmental research.
International collaborations restricted [200.220]: Federal grant funds could not be used for collaborations with researchers or institutions in certain foreign countries, limiting the international partnerships that are often essential to large-scale scientific projects.
Significantly increased compliance burden [200.303, 200.333]: Oversight and reporting requirements would increase substantially throughout the entire life of an award, with heightened scrutiny of organizational policies, fraud reporting practices, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and subrecipient management. Fixed amount subawards would be eliminated. All subawards would shift to a cost-reimbursement basis, requiring subrecipients--such as collaborating labs, field stations, or smaller institutions--to track and report all expenditures in detail.
Science communication and outreach restricted [200.421, 200.432, 200.450]: Nearly all advertising and public relations costs would become unallowable, limiting how researchers can communicate publicly about their federally funded work. Using grant funds to attend a conference would require explicit prior authorization. New prohibitions on "issue advocacy or public messaging" are vague and broadly worded, with potential to restrict legitimate science communication and outreach activities.
Professional engagement and publication costs prohibited [200.454, 200.461]: Professional society memberships, journal subscriptions, and publication costs--including article processing charges (APCs) and open access fees--would all become unallowable. The restriction on open access fees directly conflicts with existing federal mandates requiring that publicly funded research be freely available to the public.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is profoundly disquieted about this proposed rule and the risks it poses to the independence, stability, and continuity of American science. On June 4, AIBS issued a statement on this proposed rule calling on the research community, our member societies and organizations, and all those who depend on a strong scientific enterprise to add their voices.

AIBS is also preparing to submit formal comments, and in the meantime has submitted a letter to OMB requesting a 45-day extension of the public comment period, arguing that the rule's scope and complexity warrant additional time for stakeholders across the scientific and grant-receiving community to provide meaningful input. AIBS also joined a broad coalition of 323 organizations in a community letter requesting a 45-day extension.

Several informative resources are available on the 400-plus-page proposed rule, including this Substack post by Elizabeth Ginexi, a former NIH program officer, who has a separate post about how to submit comments. Ropes & Gray have outlined some helpful takeaways for award recipient organizations. Association of American Universities, Association of Public Land-Grant Universities, and COGR also shared a useful summary, and the National Council of Nonprofits have shared some guidance on commenting.

Note that when multiple respondents submit identical language, OMB may count those submissions as a single comment regardless of how many people submit. We encourage individual responses that speak directly to the personal and institutional impact these changes would have on research. AIBS will continue to share resources and guidance to help our community respond effectively.

House Advances FY 2027 Spending Bills, Proposes Small Boost for NIH

Fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations bills are continuing to advance in the U.S. House of Representatives, providing a clearer picture of congressional priorities for federal science agencies.

The House Appropriations Committee recently approved the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which would reduce funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by roughly 20%, including a 29% cut to its Science and Technology account. Several Department of the Interior agencies would also receive modest reductions, including the U.S. Geological Survey (-3.7%), National Park Service (-1%), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (-5%), and Bureau of Land Management (-4.4%). The measure advanced on a 35-27 vote.

The committee also approved the FY 2027 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) spending bill on a 34-28 party-line vote. The legislation rejects many of the Administration's proposed changes to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including plans to restructure the agency and eliminate or consolidate institutes and centers. Instead, the bill would provide NIH with approximately $47.3 billion, a modest increase of about $100 million above the current funding level. The legislation would also limit NIH's use of multi-year funding to FY 2025 levels. It would also maintain funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) at its current level of $1.5 billion.

The LHHS bill does, however, include significant reductions elsewhere in the federal health portfolio. Funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be reduced by roughly $1 billion (11%), and funding for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) would be effectively eliminated.

In related news, Representatives Sharice Davids (D-KS) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), joined by 37 bipartisan lawmakers, sent a letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressing concern that staffing shortages and administrative delays at NIH are slowing the distribution of congressionally appropriated research funding.

The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee also advanced its FY 2027 spending bill, proposing $916.5 million for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. Although below the FY 2026 enacted level of $1.27 billion, the proposal is substantially higher than the House's initial FY 2026 proposal of $700 million. The full Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up the measure on June 24.

Separately, the House passed its FY 2027 Agriculture appropriations bill by a narrow 213-210 vote. The measure includes modest reductions for several agricultural research programs.

House leaders are moving quickly to complete action on all 12 appropriations bills before the fiscal year ends on September 30. To date, two bills have passed the full House, nine have been approved by the Appropriations Committee, and the Defense bill has advanced through subcommittee consideration.

NIH Seeks Input on Proposal to Cap Research Grants Per Investigator

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering a significant change to how it distributes research funding and is seeking public comment on a proposal to limit the number of Research Project Grants (RPGs) that a single principal investigator can hold simultaneously. The request for information (RFI), released June 8, 2026, outlines potential grant caps of two, three, or four RPGs per investigator and invites public feedback.

According to NIH, the proposal is intended to broaden participation in the biomedical research enterprise, support more investigators across career stages, and maximize scientific productivity and innovation. The agency argues that distributing funding across a larger number of researchers could generate more ideas, increase opportunities for early- and mid-career scientists, and strengthen geographic and institutional diversity in the research ecosystem. NIH also cites studies suggesting that scientific output does not necessarily increase proportionally with funding levels and that smaller, less hierarchical research teams may be more likely to produce innovative findings.

The proposal echoes a controversial idea first advanced in 2017 under then-NIH Director Francis Collins. Known as the Grant Support Index, the initiative sought to free up funding for early- and mid-career investigators by limiting the amount of NIH support a single researcher could receive. NIH proposed capping support at the equivalent of three standard R01 research grants. Following strong opposition from the research community, NIH ultimately abandoned the proposal and instead created targeted funding initiatives for early- and mid-career researchers through the Next Generation Researchers Initiative.

Under the current proposal, NIH estimates that a cap of four RPGs would free approximately $1.3 billion in funding and allow support for an additional 1,900 investigators. A three-grant cap could make roughly $2 billion available for more than 3,000 additional researchers, while a two-grant limit could redirect $3.5 billion and support more than 5,200 additional investigators. NIH notes that relatively few researchers would be affected: in fiscal year 2025, about 11% of NIH-funded investigators held three or more RPGs, while only 3.6% had four or more, and 1.2% held five or more.

NIH is also evaluating transition mechanisms for investigators who exceed a future grant cap. Rather than immediately terminating awards, researchers could reduce their grant portfolios over time by transferring grants to other investigators or ending projects at the conclusion of the current budget period. NIH says these approaches are intended to free up funding while minimizing disruptions to ongoing research activities.

NIH argues that limiting the number of grants held by a single investigator could broaden access to funding and support more early-career researchers and investigators at less-resourced institutions. However, some researchers have expressed concern that a hard cap could disadvantage highly productive laboratories, large collaborative projects, and investigators who manage major shared research resources such as biobanks and data repositories.

NIH emphasizes that no final decisions have been made and that the RFI is intended to gather community input on the potential benefits, drawbacks, implementation strategies, and unintended consequences of the proposal. Comments may be submitted through August 3, 2026.

Federal Judge Blocks NSF Plan to Transfer NCAR Supercomputing Facility

A federal judge has temporarily halted a Trump Administration effort to transfer control of a key National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded supercomputing facility used by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), marking a significant setback to plans to restructure the Boulder-based climate research institution. The ruling blocks NSF from moving the Wyoming Supercomputing Center--a critical computational hub for weather and climate modeling--to another operator while litigation proceeds.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, found that the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), which operates NCAR under NSF's cooperative agreement, was likely to succeed in its claim that the agency had not provided sufficient justification or procedural basis for the transfer. The court further concluded that allowing the move to proceed would risk irreparable harm, including disruption of ongoing research and loss of specialized personnel tied to the facility's operations.

The injunction does not resolve the underlying legal dispute but signals skepticism toward the agency's rationale and process.

At issue is a broader federal effort to reorganize NCAR by shifting key assets--including high-performance computing infrastructure--to alternative operators. The federally funded facility supports forecasting for hurricanes, monitoring of space weather, wildfire modeling, and severe storm research. It has become a focal point in broader Trump Administration efforts to restructure federal science agencies, with observers arguing that such actions can move faster than courts or Congress are able to respond.

Trump Expands Political Control Over Thousands of Federal Positions

The Trump Administration has moved to reclassify approximately 8,000 federal positions as Schedule Policy/Career jobs, removing longstanding civil service protections and making it easier for agencies to dismiss and replace employees. President Trump directed the changes through an Executive Order issued on June 3, arguing that the move will improve accountability and allow agencies to address poor performance more efficiently.

The reclassification affects employees across the federal government, including positions at major science agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Department of Energy (DOE). The Administration says affected positions will continue to be filled based on merit rather than political affiliation.

Critics, including federal employee unions, congressional Democrats, and former agency officials, argue that the change could politicize traditionally nonpartisan scientific and technical roles. They warn that employees responsible for overseeing research programs, grants, contracts, and regulatory decisions could face increased political pressure and reduced independence.

NIH appears to be among the agencies most significantly affected. While only a small number of NIH job classifications were included in the Executive Order, several of those classifications encompass hundreds of program officers and supervisors responsible for managing the agency's $38 billion extramural research portfolio. At NSF, a handful of positions were reclassified, primarily in administrative and grants management functions. At NIST, senior policy advisors would be affected. At NOAA, however, a broader range of management and oversight positions were included.

Federal agencies were directed to notify affected employees of their reclassification by June 10.

NSF to Dismantle Major Ocean Monitoring Network

The National Science Foundation (NSF) plans to dismantle much of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), a $368 million network of more than 900 ocean-monitoring instruments that has operated since 2016.

The system collects long-term data from sites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, including locations off Alaska, Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, and the Irminger Sea between Greenland and Iceland. Researchers have relied on OOI data to study ocean warming, carbon uptake, marine ecosystems, fisheries, coastal flooding, and major climate systems such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

NSF said the decision "aligns with N.S.F.'s wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure." The agency noted that some monitoring associated with an offshore tectonic plate observatory will continue through 2028.

Scientists and former federal science officials have criticized the move, arguing that the loss of long-term ocean observations could undermine climate and environmental research and diminish U.S. leadership in ocean science. Removal of the instruments could take approximately 15 months.

AIBS Signs Letter on Restructuring of USDA Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area

AIBS joined 50 other stakeholder organizations in a letter to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees raising concerns about recent changes within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area.

The letter warns that significant staffing reductions across REE agencies--including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Economic Research Service (ERS), and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)--combined with proposed laboratory closures and reorganization efforts, risk undermining the nation's agricultural research capacity. In addition, the signatories point to delays in distributing congressionally appropriated research funds and inconsistent agency directives as factors disrupting ongoing research projects, slowing grant processing, and affecting university-based agricultural science programs.

The coalition urges Congress to conduct oversight hearings, require detailed accounting of workforce and funding disruptions, and ensure transparent implementation of any restructuring within USDA's REE mission area.

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.

Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy

The American Institute of Biological Sciences is pleased to announce that registration is now open for the 2026 Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event.

Now in its 17th year, this national initiative is an opportunity for biologists across the country to meet with their federal or state elected officials to showcase the people, facilities, and equipment that are required to support and conduct scientific research. This initiative helps to put a face on science and to remind lawmakers that science is happening in their district and state.

The Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event enables scientists, graduate students, representatives of research facilities, and people affiliated with scientific collections to meet with their federal or state elected officials without traveling to Washington, DC. Participating scientists can meet with their elected officials at the local district office or invite them to visit their research facility.

"I am grateful for the experience, which has enriched my professional development. I am particularly pleased to think that we started a conversation with Rep. Joyce Beatty's office that will continue in the future. I encourage everyone to reach out beyond their scientific community, which includes explaining your science to your district offices."

- Coralie Farinas, Graduate Student, Ohio State University

AIBS will schedule participants' meetings with lawmakers and will prepare participants through online training and one-on-one support. Meetings will take place mid-July through October, depending on the participant's schedule and their lawmaker's availability. Read the Frequently Asked Questions for more information.

This event is made possible by the American Institute of Biological Sciences, with the support of event sponsors American Arachnological Society, American Society of Primatologists, Botanical Society of America, Florida International University Institute of Environment, Mycological Society of America, Organization of Biological Field Stations, and Paleontological Society.

Registration for participation is free, but required and closes on July 13, 2026. To learn more and register, visit io.aibs.org/cdv.

Short Takes

The National Science Foundation's (NSF) Directorate for Geological Sciences is hiring associate program directors and welcomes interest from applicants with expertise in any areas of the geosciences, such as ocean sciences, earth sciences, and atmospheric and geospace sciences. These career opportunities will be listed on the NSF career webpage under current job openings.
On June 11, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced the selection of Dr. Raymond H. Jacobson as the Director of NIH's Center for Scientific Review (CSR). Jacobson previously served as CSR's Acting Director following the retirement of former director Dr. Bruce Reed. Learn more.
The Senate has confirmed Arvind Raman as Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology. Nominated by President Trump in October 2025, Raman most recently served as Dean of the College of Engineering at Purdue University and has been a mechanical engineering professor there since 2012. He succeeds Craig Burkhardt, who has led NIST in an acting capacity since January 2025.
NSF is tightening conflict-of-interest rules for grant-review panels, a change researchers say could further strain an agency already facing significant workforce reductions. Under the new policy, individuals with institutional conflicts of interest will be barred from serving on any panel reviewing proposals from their institution, a stricter standard than current practice, which generally relies on recusal from specific decisions. NSF says the change is intended to standardize conflict-of-interest rules across the agency. The new rules are set to take effect on August 3, 2026.
Join staff from the Directorate for Biological Sciences at NSF for a Virtual Office Hour on June 17 at 1:00-2:00PM ET on the Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology (PRFB) program. Register now.
A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that a federal mandate requiring free public access to scholarly publications could drive annual publishing costs for nine research agencies, including NIH, NSF, and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, to as much as $1 billion by 2030, more than triple 2024 spending levels. The report notes that while agencies are increasingly shifting toward pay-to-publish models, only NIH had planned for the potential budget impacts of these rising publication costs.
NSF's Office of Inspector General is no longer investigating research misconduct allegations following significant workforce reductions since President Donald Trump took office, according to reporting by Science Insider. Instead, allegations will be referred to recipient institutions for investigation.