In Brief
Take Action: Lend Your Voice to NSF Forward Today!
The National Science Foundation is reassessing how it supports U.S. research—and your voice is essential. BPS has partnered with the American Physical Society to launch NSF Forward, a national effort to gather ideas from the research community and turn them into policy recommendations for the 120th Congress.
BPS is asking you for your input. Share what’s working, what isn’t, and what new approaches could strengthen NSF’s programs, funding processes, infrastructure, and workforce development. Ideas of any size or scope are welcome. Your feedback will inform white papers, expert guidance, and the NSF Forward Task Force as they develop final recommendations.
Now is the moment to influence how NSF evolves to meet the nation’s scientific needs. Take a few minutes to contribute your ideas and help shape the next generation of NSF policy. Add your voice today!
Senate Spending Bill Would Block OMB Grant Rule Changes
As Congress headed out for the August Recess period, the U.S. Senate included a small provision in their continuing resolution (CR) package to temporarily block the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from finalizing proposed changes to federal financial assistance rules until December 11.
The proposed changes have drawn strong opposition from the research community over provisions that could allow political appointees greater influence over funding decisions, require agencies to align awards with presidential priorities, and restrict collaborations with countries including China.
While the OMB provision was not included in the House bill, it will be on the table when negotiations start upon Congress’ returns after the holiday weekend. Congress needs to hear from the scientific community in order to understand the harmful ramifications of the OMB proposed rule and to ensure the provision is included in the final CR agreement.
NIH Proposes Changes to Grant Review Process; Shielding CSR Scoring
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is proposing a significant change to how research grants are evaluated, replacing the current system of providing applicants with numerical peer-review scores with a three-tier “binning” system.
Under the proposal, NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR) would place applications into three categories: “most competitive” (top 25%), “competitive” (26%–50%), and “not discussed” (bottom 50%). Applicants and NIH institute staff would receive the category and written reviewer critiques, but not the specific numerical score or percentile ranking.
NIH claims the change would elevate the role of peer review by reducing reliance on numerical scores, which can vary among reviewers and may create a false sense of precision. The approach also supports NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s Unified Funding Strategy, which moves away from strict funding paylines and gives institutes greater discretion to consider factors such as research priorities and career stage.
Researchers argue that withholding scores would reduce transparency and deprive scientists of information they currently use to assess funding prospects and make decisions about staffing and research planning. The change would also give NIH institute staff greater responsibility for funding decisions. Concerns are heightened by other changes at NIH, including increased scrutiny of politically sensitive research and proposals to give political appointees greater influence over grantmaking. The elimination of numerical scores could make it difficult to discern whether funding decisions are based primarily on scientific merit.
NIH is accepting comments on the proposal through October 13.
White House Issues New Policy on High-Risk Pathogen Research
The White House has released a new policy governing federally funded research involving dangerous pathogens, drawing mixed reactions from scientists. While many support stronger safeguards, some warn that the policy’s broad and vague definitions could create uncertainty for researchers.
The policy bans federal funding for seven categories of dangerous gain-of-function (DGOF) research, including studies that could increase a pathogen’s transmissibility or ability to evade the immune system, resurrect extinct pathogens, or create “mirror life” organisms. It requires researchers and institutions to assess and report potentially high-risk research and creates a new independent review board for studies whose status is unclear. Violations could result in loss of federal funding and a five-year ban on new federal life sciences funding. Restrictions will be issued federal funding for researchers in China, North Korea, Iran and Cuba and directs agencies to review safety standards for federally funded research conducted abroad.
Federal agencies have 120 days to issue implementation guidance. Until then, NIH says previously suspended studies involving potentially high-risk pathogen research will remain paused. Researchers are watching the forthcoming guidance closely to determine how broadly the new requirements will be applied and what they will mean for federally funded life sciences research.