Diana Wall (1943–2024) was a champion for biodiversity. Her decades of work as a soil ecologist in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica proved that life can thrive in the harshest of environments. In those seemingly barren polar deserts, Wall discovered that microscopic nematodes are the top predators in the soil and key drivers of the carbon cycle. Wall was the founder of the Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative, and she served as university distinguished professor, director of the School of Global Environmental Sustainability, and professor in the Department of Biology, at Colorado State University. In 1993, she served as president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). Diana’s bequest to AIBS will benefit early-career scientists, continuing her legacy of collaboration, inspiration, and service to biological sciences research endeavors that connect communities and foster collaboration for the benefit of science and society.

Objective: To honor Diana Wall’s contribution to AIBS, science, and society. To recognize and incentivize outstanding scientific communication and research by early-career scientists who have published in BioScience.

Overview

The AIBS Diana Wall Graduate Student Publication Award is a prestigious annual award granted to a graduate student (master’s or PhD candidate) who has served as the lead author of a peer-reviewed article published in BioScience during the preceding calendar year.

The award will recognize the student’s ability to synthesize complex biological concepts for a broad scientific audience.

Eligibility & Criteria

• Lead Author Status: The applicant must be the lead (typically first listed) author of the article.
• Academic Standing: The applicant must have been a registered graduate student at the time of the article’s initial submission.
• Article Scope: Eligible submissions include peer-reviewed articles that contribute significantly to the biological sciences or the intersection of science and policy.

Selection Process

The selection is a two-stage process coordinated by the journal’s leadership:

• Editorial Shortlist: The AIBS Publications Committee identifies the top graduate-led papers based on their potential impact, scientific rigor, and clarity of prose.
• Selection Committee: A committee comprising a cohort of the AIBS Publications Committee evaluates the shortlist to select the winner.

The Award Package

Each recipient (up to 4 annually) of the award receives:

• The Impact Stipend: A one-time cash award of $2,500 to support the student’s continuing research and/or travel.
• Featured Profile: A dedicated “Author Spotlight” in a subsequent issue of BioScience and on AIBS digital platforms.
• Open Access Credit: A voucher for the student’s next BioScience submission to be published as Open Access at no cost to the author.

Benefits to the Scientific Community

• For the Journal: Increases the volume of high-quality submissions from the next generation of researchers.
• For the Student: Provides a “gold-standard” credential that differentiates them in a competitive academic and professional job market.
• For the Institute: Reaffirms the role of AIBS in mentoring and championing educational endeavors during challenging times for research funding.

Submit your application today.

In this issue:

• Senate Passes Stopgap Spending Bill to Block OMB Grant Rule
• Action Alert: Call & Write Your Members of Congress About the OMB Grants Rule
• New NIH Policy Bans “Dangerous Gain-of-Function” Research
• Bipartisan Bill Would Reverse Trump ESA Rule on Habitat Protections
• Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course

• Short Takes

  • Senate Confirms Erica Schwartz as CDC Director
  • State Department Proposes Stricter J Visa Rules
  • NSF Launches Pilot to Integrate Industry Experience into Ph.D. Training
  • NIH Terminates Additional Health Disparities Research Grants
  • NASEM to Review Process Behind Controversial Climate Science Chapter
• From the Federal Register

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. But OMB is under no obligation to change course, and it intends to finalize the rule this fall – which means the window to influence the outcome is measured in weeks, not months – and most congressional offices have heard very little from their constituents about this rule.

WHY CONGRESS, AND WHY NOW

This represents a major overhaul of the rules governing every federal grant. It would let senior political appointees override independent peer reviewers, allow agencies to terminate active awards when priorities shift, and restrict the conferences, memberships, and publications through which research reaches the public. OMB concedes it could not quantify what any of this would cost. Congress authorized these programs and appropriates the funds; this rule shifts control over how that money is spent toward the executive branch and away from the merit-based review Congress has long supported.

The Senate has passed a continuing resolution that includes a provision to 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, delaying implementation of the OMB rule, but not resolving 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 critical: members are in their districts and states for most of August, when they are 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.

In this issue:

• White House Report Calls for Sweeping Overhaul of the Federal Research Enterprise
• House Passes Stopgap Funding Bill as FY 2027 Appropriations Stall
• NSF X-Labs Initiative Raises Questions for Core Research
• CDC Director Nominee Faces Questions on Scientific Independence
• NASEM Climate Attribution Report Draws Political Fire
• NSF Seeks Input on Major Revision of Proposal and Award Policies
• Court Rejects Use of Shifting Priorities to Cancel Federal Grants
• FCC Approves Reflect Orbital Test Satellite Despite Scientific Concerns
• Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course

• Short Takes

  • Bipartisan Letter Urges OMB to Reconsider Grants Rule
  • DHS Limits International Student Visas to Four Years
  • Trump Administration Finalizes Additional Changes to ESA Regulations
  • HHS Halts Funding for Dozens of AHRQ Research Grants
  • NIH Begins New Round of Grant Terminations
  • DOE Announces First Genesis Mission Awards
• From the Federal Register

In this issue:

• AIBS Comments on the Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule
• AIBS Joins Call For Congressional Oversight of USDA Collections Relocation
• Russell Vought Testifies Before Congress, Defends Proposed Grants Rule
• NSF Announces Prohibition on Collaborations with Restricted Entities
• Trump Administration Finalizes Narrower Endangered Species Act Protections
• House Panel Weighs AI, Biosecurity, and U.S. Tech Leadership
• Supreme Court Bolsters Presidential Control Over Independent Agencies
• Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
• Last Day to Register: Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits

• Short Takes

  • NSF BIO to Host Virtual Office Hour on July 16
  • Ph.D. Admissions Decline Amid Research Funding Uncertainty
  • CDC Expands Scope and Membership Criteria for Vaccine Advisory Committee
  • EPA Considers Rolling Back PFAS Drinking Water Protections
  • Input Requested: Decadal Survey for Earth Science and Applications from Space
  • NIH Releases Large-Scale Diverse Genomic Dataset Through All of Us Initiative
  • Trump Signs Executive Order Advancing Regenerative Agriculture Research
  • Survey Finds Widespread Exposure to Vaccine Myths but Limited Firm Belief
• From the Federal Register

The letter raises concerns about the future of critical agricultural collections—including the U.S. National Fungus Collection, the USDA Nematode Collection, the Maize Genetics Cooperation Stock Center, and the National Soybean Germplasm Collection—as USDA’s reorganization proceeds. It urges Congress to exercise its oversight role by holding hearings and ensuring that detailed relocation plans, appropriate facilities, and long-term staffing commitments are in place before any transfers occur.

The organizations emphasize that these collections and the scientific expertise required to maintain them are essential to agricultural research and biosecurity. “Together, these collections and their associated experts make the United States a world leader in scientific research that safeguards the future of American and global agriculture,” the letter states. “We are confident that with appropriate oversight and planning, these transitions can be managed in a way that preserves these extraordinary resources for future generations.”

Identical letters were sent to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

Published on May 29, 2026, the proposed rule would touch nearly every stage of the federal award life cycle. In its comments, AIBS focused on the provisions affecting scientific research: a new pre-issuance review that would let political appointees override independent peer review; expanded authority to terminate active awards midstream when priorities shift; broad restrictions on international collaboration; new limits on conferences, publishing and open access, and professional memberships; and a default prohibition on publication costs that conflicts with existing federal open-access policy. AIBS also noted that the rule was issued with only a 45-day comment period and without any analysis of its costs.

“AIBS shares OMB’s stated goals of transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” the comments state. “We are deeply concerned, however, that this proposed rule, taken as a whole, would cause lasting and largely preventable harm to the U.S. research enterprise—harm that would outlast any single administration.”

The comments argue that the rule runs counter to the Trump Administration’s own Executive Order on Restoring Gold Standard Science (EO 14303), which calls for science that is “reproducible, transparent, collaborative, interdisciplinary, subject to unbiased peer review, and free of conflicts of interest.” Instead, AIBS writes, the rule “would replace unbiased expert review with review by political appointees, restrict the international collaboration that is a cornerstone of how science advances, and tie funding to administration priorities that may change at any moment.”

AIBS urged OMB to abandon the rule in its current form and to approach any future major revisions to federal grantmaking policies with appropriate stakeholder consultation and analysis.

Read the full comments.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• Commenting Tool, Resources on the Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule
• NSF Reverses Course on Dismantling Ocean Monitoring Network
• House Panel Examines Use of False Claims Act in Combating Research Grant Fraud
• House Advances AI Research, Standards, and Infrastructure Bills
• NIH Seeks Input on Measuring and Rewarding Scientific Impact
• Senate Unveils Farm Bill Reauthorizing Agricultural Research Programs
• Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
• Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy

• Short Takes

  • Senate Delays FY 2027 Appropriations Markups
  • NSF Hiring Program Directors
  • NIH Staff Report Ongoing Agency Disruptions
  • OMB Nominee Backs Political Oversight of Federal Grants
  • Report Highlights Progress, Remaining Challenges in Reducing Cancer Disparities
  • CDC Revises Plan for Retiring Research Monkeys
• From the Federal Register

The American Institute of Biological Sciences is partnering with the American Physical Society (APS) on a commenting campaign regarding the proposed OMB rule on federal financial assistance. This is an important opportunity for the scientific community to weigh in on federal policy.

To make it as easy as possible for individuals to engage, APS has developed a dedicated online tool.

This portal provides a distilled, easy-to-digest summary of the proposed OMB changes. More importantly, it features an interactive interface that helps individual researchers, educators, and scientists craft and submit their own personalized comments directly to regulations.gov.

We call on the research community, our member societies and organizations, and all those who depend on a strong scientific enterprise to submit comments and to share this resource widely.

AIBS Resources

• AIBS Statement on OMB Proposed Rule on Federal Financial Assistance
• AIBS Requests Extension of Comment Period for Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule
• AIBS Joins 300+ Organizations in Request for Extension of OMB Grants Rule Comment Period
• AIBS Comments on the Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule
• AIBS fact sheet on the proposed OMB federal grants rule
• Action Alert & Toolkit for Congressional Outreach

Additional Resources

Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities

• Tracker of Congressional Letters on Uniform Guidance

Elizabeth Ginexi Substack

• Summary of Key Changes in OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule
• What We Need to do NEXT: OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule
• This new OMB Rule Is Bigger Than Science. Much Bigger.

Council on Governmental Relations (COGR)

• OMB Proposed Rule on Uniform Guidance: Immediate Considerations for Research Institutions (with AAU, APLU)
• June Meeting (Slides)

Congressional Research Service

• May 2026 Proposed Rule on Uniform Guidance for Federal Grants: Summary of Selected Changes

Ropes & Gray

• OMB Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Guidance: Key Takeaways for Award Recipient Organizations

National Council of Nonprofits

• Chart of Proposed Changes to the OMB Uniform Guidance
• Comment Guide
• National Sign-on Letter

Governing for Impact

• Rapid Response: The Lack of Statutory Authority in OMB’s Proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance

Research!America

• Collection of Resources

27 UNIHTED

• How to Stop OMB’s Proposed Rule ‘Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance’

American Institute of Physics

• AIP Federation Webinar: What the Proposed OMB Uniform Guidance Means for Science

Scholarly Kitchen

• The US Government’s New Guidance for Federal Grants and The Case for Scholarly Societies

Sarah M. Trimmer

• “OMB Comments for Busy People“ (Google Drive)

In this issue:

• AIBS Issues Statement, Requests Extension of Comment Period for Proposed OMB Federal Grants Rule
• House Advances FY 2027 Spending Bills, Proposes Small Boost for NIH
• NIH Seeks Input on Proposal to Cap Research Grants Per Investigator
• Federal Judge Blocks NSF Plan to Transfer NCAR Supercomputing Facility
• Trump Expands Political Control Over Thousands of Federal Positions
• NSF to Dismantle Major Ocean Monitoring Network
• AIBS Signs Letter on Restructuring of USDA Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area
• Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
• Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy

• Short Takes

  • NSF GEO is Hiring Associate Program Directors
  • New Director Selected for NIH Center for Scientific Review
  • Senate Confirms NIST Director
  • NSF Tightens Conflict-of-Interest Rules for Grant Review Panels
  • Virtual Office Hour: NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology
  • GAO: Research Publishing Fees Could Reach $1 Billion by 2030
  • NSF Watchdog No Longer Investigating Research Misconduct
• From the Federal Register

The coalition argues that the proposal’s broad scope, which would amend hundreds of regulatory provisions affecting federal financial assistance programs across government—requires additional time for stakeholders to assess its potential impacts. The letter requests a 45-day extension, moving the comment deadline from July 13 to August 27, 2026, to ensure meaningful public input on changes that could affect universities, research institutions, nonprofits, and other recipients of federal funding.

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

“It is perfectly okay to write garbage—as long as you edit brilliantly.”

— C. J. Cherryh

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) has heard a common refrain from faculty, scientists, government and private sector executives, and everyone in between: Scientists are increasingly responsible for public engagement and business writing, yet they are rarely given the tools they need to succeed.

AIBS is responding by re-offering our professional development program designed to help scientists, including graduate students, hone their written communication skills to increase the impact and influence of their message. This course complements AIBS’s highly successful Communications Boot Camp for Scientists, which focuses on oral communication.

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.

Sample Topics

• Press releases and writing for the media
• Blogging and social media campaigns
• Writing for professional audiences
• One-pagers and writing for stakeholders
• Action/decision memoranda
• Synthesis

Participant Requirements

Internet access, email account, and computer audio and video capabilities.

Course Structure

The course consists of six 90-minute online modules conducted live and subsequently archived online for participant review. Modules are spaced at weekly intervals to allow time for assignment completion. Live attendance is recommended but not required, and the instructor can be contacted by email at any time during the course.

Assignments

A writing assignment will be given in each of the first five courses. Students will receive timely feedback on their assignments.

Certificate of Completion

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.

Schedule

The course will begin on Friday, 11 September 2026. The subsequent course sessions will be held weekly on Friday, through 16 October. All live courses will begin at 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. Recorded programs will be available to participants after the live session.

Cost

• $510/person: General registration for individuals who are not nominated by an AIBS Member Society or Organization (MSO).
• $440/person: Discounted registration for individuals nominated by an AIBS Member Society or Organization (MSO).

Registration

Space is limited and the course will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration is required.

Please complete the registration form as soon as possible as space is limited.

AIBS emphasizes that the proposed changes could have broad implications for federal grant administration across science agencies and notes that additional time would help ensure a more complete and evidence-based public comment process.

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

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. It also highlights historical evidence suggesting that prior USDA relocations led to substantial staff losses and reduced research output.

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. These challenges, the letter argues, threaten the continuity of critical long-term agricultural research .

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. The letter also emphasizes that sustained federal investment in agricultural research is essential to maintaining U.S. competitiveness, food security, and the productivity of American agriculture.

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The proposed rule would, among many other changes, authorize federal agencies to terminate active research awards when administration priorities shift; insert political appointees into the final step of the grant selection process, giving them authority to override the judgment of independent scientific peer reviewers; make publication costs and open access fees unallowable by default, in direct conflict with existing federal open access requirements; and restrict a wide range of routine research activities—from professional society memberships and journal subscriptions to conference attendance—through new approval requirements and cost prohibitions. The criteria that would govern these decisions, including what constitutes administration priorities or the national interest, are left undefined in the proposed rule, offering grantees little basis to anticipate, understand, or respond to adverse decisions.

Science does not run on a four-year clock. Clinical trials, long-term ecological studies, and other multi-year research programs require sustained commitment to produce results—and the patients, communities, industries, and scientific fields that depend on them cannot absorb the disruption of a politically motivated midstream termination. Beyond the immediate harm, a grants system redesigned to be easily redirected with each change in administration would be a death trap for American scientific innovation and leadership. The mechanisms this proposed rule would put in place could be used by any administration to substantially reshape the research enterprise on the basis of political preference rather than subject matter expertise used to assess independent scientific merit. Merit-based scientific peer review is a cornerstone of research integrity that has driven the world’s leading scientific endeavors for decades. Threatening it is a risk no administration should create. At a time when the United States faces intensifying global competition in science and technology, and when other nations are investing heavily in stable, long-term research programs, the U.S. cannot afford to undermine the reliability of its own research funding environment.

AIBS will submit formal comments opposing this proposed rule and will work in coalition with peer scientific societies, research universities, and other stakeholders to mount a coordinated response from the scientific community. We call on the research community, our member societies and organizations, and all those who depend on a strong scientific enterprise to add their full-throated voices. Comments are due on or before July 13, 2026, and may be submitted at regulations.gov, docket OMB-2026-0034.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• Trump Administration Proposes Sweeping Changes to Federal Award Processes
• More Science Funding Bills Advance in the House
• CDC Pulls Back Changes to Vaccine Advisory Committee
• Roll Back of PFAS Drinking Water Protections
• More Leadership Turmoil at NIH Institute
• Overseas Research Collaborations Under More Scrutiny
• AIBS Joins Letter Expressing Concerns About Proposed Forest Service Reorganization
• Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy

• Short Takes

  • Nondisclosure Agreement Proposed for Federal Workers
  • Senate Confirms New Director of BLM
  • Funding Opportunity: AI-based Health Research
• From the Federal Register

“Congress has explicitly restricted the use of FY 2026 appropriated funds to conduct agency reorganizations, including provisions stating that funds may not be used to ‘eliminate programs or projects, relocate an office or employees, or reorganize offices, programs, or activities’ without prior approval from the Committee on Appropriations,” the letter reads. “The proposed changes to USFS reflect a large-scale restructuring that potentially violates appropriations law and warrants close congressional oversight to ensure no legal limits are crossed.”

The letter outlines specific requests, including the need for robust congressional oversight and ensuring that appropriated funds for USFS Research and Development are used as intended.

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy
• House Advances FY 2027 Science Spending Bills
• New Science Indicators Report Warns U.S. Is Losing Ground to China
• Democratic Lawmakers Press White House Over NSF Board Firings
• AIBS Joins Letter in Support of NSF’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
• AIBS Submits Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for NSF
• Coalition Urges Senate to Hold Confirmation Hearing for NSF Director Nominee

• Short Takes

  • Administration Moves to Scale Back CDC Role in Global HIV Program
  • Universities Sue NSF Over Moves to Restructure NCAR
  • Agencies Seek Public Comment on Anti-DEI Contract Requirements
  • House Science Democrat Asks GAO to Examine Information Collection on STEM Workforce Needs
  • CDC Head Calls for New Journal
  • Trump Administration Reverses Biden-Era Public Lands Rule
  • Museums for All Webinar
• From the Federal Register

“Although Mr. O’Neill was previously confirmed by this Committee for a position at Health and Human Services, the NSF Director position is fundamentally different, thereby requiring a hearing,” the letter reads. “For more than a year, NSF has been led on an acting basis by its Chief of Staff—a dedicated public servant who has ably led the agency, but without the statutory authority, the mandate, or the full institutional standing that a Senate-confirmed Director carries. During this period of leadership uncertainty, NSF has faced significant disruptions, the departure of more than 30 percent of its staff, the relocation of its headquarters, and the troubling recent dismissal of all members of the National Science Board. The agency and America’s scientific enterprise urgently need Congressional support and a confirmed and accountable leader. The questions surrounding NSF’s direction—its funding priorities and its commitment to supporting the full breadth of fundamental research—deserve genuine examination by Congress. A confirmation hearing is precisely the venue for these questions.”

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The SBE Directorate is slated for termination under the President’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. “Even though our organizations represent scientific and technological fields that primarily receive research funding from other parts of NSF, we view SBE as a critical asset for advancing our respective scientific missions,” the groups argue.

The letter reads, in part:

“Many of the nation’s most pressing policy questions have a scientific or technological component that needs to be understood through a human lens, including through integrated modeling and design approaches that combine technical systems with human behavior. That is where the research that SBE supports comes into play, providing crucial data and theoretical frameworks that inform work across the entire research enterprise, including the biological, computer and information sciences, engineering, and the mathematical and physical sciences. Examples include research on team collaboration informing engineering design and understanding economic incentives for energy efficiency, as well as examining the impact of modern air power for national security. NSF’s support for SBE has even resulted in a remarkable number of economics Nobel laureates. Solving the most challenging modern research and development problems, such as the societal impacts of AI, cybersecurity, or public health, requires more than just technical research; the persistent barriers are fundamentally human.”

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

“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

Biological Sciences Congressional District Visit

ⓘ

The Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event is held during the summer and early fall each year. Meetings typically take place between mid-July and the end of October. Participating scientists can either meet with their elected officials at the local district office or invite them to visit their research facility. Tours of research facilities are especially encouraged, as such visits provide lawmakers with a personal connection to the scientific activities taking place in their district.

AIBS will schedule the meetings with lawmakers and will prepare participants through online training and one-on-one support.

“We were able to share with Representative Veronica Escobar’s (D-TX) District Director what natural history collections were and how important federal funding was to museums like us. This program was a great first step to building a relationship with our local elected officials and to let them know what resources there are in the area.”

-- Dr. Vicky Zhuang, Biodiversity Collections Manager, University of Texas, El Paso

How to Participate

Registration has now closed for the 2026 event. Please check back next spring for additional information on the 2027 event.

Additional Information

• Participants are responsible for checking their employer’s policies regarding involvement in public policy and about organizing a tour on site.
• Need more information? Check out the Frequently Asked Questions.
• Participant Handbook and additional resources can be accessed here.
• Have questions? Contact us.

We Need Your Help!

AIBS is seeking organizational Sponsors and Supporters to help ensure the success of this event and to defray the costs of the training program and the preparation of materials.

• For a $750 contribution, your organization will be listed as an event Sponsor on all promotional materials.
• For a $500 contribution, your organization will be listed as an event Supporter.

Please help advance biology by becoming a Sponsor of the 17th Annual Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event.

Click here to join us as a sponsor or contact us to learn more before you decide.

2026 Sponsors and Supporters:

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The testimony reads, in part: “Providing NSF with at least $9.9 billion in FY 2027 is necessary to reverse years of underinvestment in research. This funding would strengthen and expand the U.S. bioeconomy while enabling NSF to accelerate work at the frontiers of science and engineering, including strategic priorities such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and advanced biomanufacturing. It would also support critical research on infectious diseases and pandemics, closing key knowledge gaps regarding the spread and evolution of biological threats.”

NSF received an 8% budget cut in FY 2024, flat funding in FY 2025, and a 3.4% cut in FY 2026 — well below the targets established under the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. AIBS urged Congress to reject the 55% budget cut for NSF and plan to dismantle the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate proposed in the President’s budget and instead restore the agency to its FY 2023 funding level, reaffirming our national commitment to scientific excellence.

“To remain at the global forefront of innovation and to fully realize the benefits of NSF-supported research, the government must make bold and sustained investments in NSF,” AIBS argued. “Unpredictability in funding disrupts research programs, creates uncertainty in the research community, and stalls the development of the next great idea. Enacting robust funding increases for NSF will allow for critical federal investments in scientific research, education, and the STEM workforce pipeline, especially as the agency undergoes a major reorganization.”

Read the testimony submitted to House appropriators. A similar letter will be submitted to the Senate.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• White House Dismisses National Science Board
• AIBS Statement on Dismissal of National Science Board
• Biologists Advocate for Robust Science Funding During AIBS Congressional Visits Day
• House Begins Work on FY 2027 Appropriations
• USDA Advances Reorganization Plan, Continues Push to Close BARC
• Congress Scrutinizes FY 2027 Science Agency Budget Requests
• AIBS Provides Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for Smithsonian Institution, USGS, USFWS, and EPA
• AIBS Submits Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for NIH

• Short Takes

  • White House Withdraws NPS Director Nomination
  • House Science Republicans Target NASEM Climate Report
  • EPA Announces Leader for New Science Office
  • National Academies Seek Experts in Animal Health & Conservation Research
  • NSF CAREER Program Informational Webinar
  • Nature: More than 100 Science Advisory Committees Terminated Under Trump
  • NSF Office of Polar Programs Office Hour
  • Bipartisan Wildlife Corridor Bill Introduced
• From the Federal Register

AIBS Communications Boot Camp Participants.

ⓘ

The event began with a two-day communications and advocacy training program designed to help participants strengthen their ability to communicate effectively about their research with the public, policymakers, and the media. Scientists then headed to Capitol Hill on April 22, where they met with members of Congress and their staff. These meetings gave participants an opportunity to apply the skills developed during the training while advocating for strong federal support for scientific research.

At a pivotal moment for the U.S. scientific enterprise, these meetings were an opportunity for scientists to help lawmakers understand the importance of sustained, predictable federal investments in research and the benefits those investments deliver to their districts and states. Participants urged Congress to provide at least $9.9 billion for the National Science Foundation and $51.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health in fiscal year (FY) 2027. Many also highlighted the need for renewed investments in science programs at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior.

In addition, participants called on Congress to reject the steep cuts to science proposed in the President’s FY 2027 budget request and to ensure that appropriated funds are spent by agencies as directed by Congress. In total, AIBS coordinated 66 meetings with congressional offices, including 36 Republican offices, 29 Democratic offices, and one Independent office.

Ossoff photo (L-R): Leah Oliver, Nicholas Macias, Sen. Jon Ossoff, Aaron David, Jennifer Owen, and Sahas Barve

ⓘ

Scientists from 20 states and the District of Columbia took part in the event. Several AIBS member societies sponsored participating scientists, including the American Society of Mammalogists, Botanical Society of America, Helminthological Society of Washington, Mycological Society of America, Organization of Biological Field Stations, and Society for the Study of Evolution. The 2025 AIBS & SURA Public Policy Fellow, Anna Rader Groves, also attended. View more images of the event.

This event was made possible in part through the generous support of AIBS members who contribute to the organization’s public policy efforts. To learn more about supporting science policy initiatives, contact the AIBS Public Policy Office.

This event was made possible in part through the generous support of AIBS members who contribute to the organization’s public policy efforts. To learn more about supporting science policy initiatives, contact the AIBS Public Policy Office.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The NSB is the governing body of the National Science Foundation (NSF), an agency that serves as the backbone of the American scientific enterprise. For decades, the NSB has functioned as an independent body of experts, with members serving staggered, six-year terms. This structure was intentionally designed to insulate the nation’s scientific priorities from the shifts of political cycles, ensuring that American innovation is guided by merit, evidence, and long-term strategic vision.

This dismissal is compounded by the fact that NSF has been without a Senate-confirmed Director for more than a year. The simultaneous absence of a permanent Director and the sudden dissolution of the Board leaves the nation’s premier science agency without the critical leadership necessary to oversee its strategic mission.

This decision threatens to erode public trust in federal science and jeopardizes the United States’ standing as a global leader in science and technology. At a time of intensifying international competition, the U.S. must maintain the leadership and stability of its premier science agency. Restoring independent, expert-led governance is essential to ensuring the American scientific enterprise continues to drive national prosperity, health, and security.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.