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 Actions

• 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

Additional Resources

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 for the 2026 event is free but required. Registration closes on July 13, 2026. Register below.

Note: 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:

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

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.

The testimony reads, in part:

We encourage Congress to provide new funding to the Smithsonian Institution in FY 2027, including at least $60 million to the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) with robust funding to support scientific and curatorial work. We urge Congress to provide the USGS with $1.85 billion in FY 2027 and preserve its Ecosystems Mission Area. We further request that funding for Science Applications within USFWS be sustained in FY 2027. Lastly, we request that Congress provide EPA Science and Technology with at least $876 million in FY 2027.

Robust federal investments in scientific research and monitoring that improves our understanding of biological diversity and ecosystem function must be a priority, urged AIBS, noting that the agencies funded by this appropriations bill are centrally involved in conducting, supporting, and using this scientific research. “Shrinking budgets and workforce for these agencies will strain our ability to address national challenges and remain a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation,” argued AIBS.

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.

AIBS urged Congress to provide NIH with a base budget of at least $51.3 billion in FY 2027, an increase of 8.7% over the FY 2026 enacted level, arguing that this level of funding is needed to “advance priority areas, including chronic and infectious diseases, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, mental health, and nutrition science, as well as the application of artificial intelligence in biomedical research.”

AIBS further requested Congress to ensure that appropriated funds are spent as intended and that funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) supplements, rather than supplants, NIH’s base budget. “ARPA-H’s mission to support high-risk, high-reward research should complement NIH’s core role in advancing fundamental science.”

Read the testimony.

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

In this issue:

• FY 2027 NSF Budget Request Slashes BIO Funding, Terminates SBE
• NIH’s Budget Request for FY 2027
• Trump Nominates New CDC Director
• Senate Agriculture Chair Pushes Back on Forest Service Move
• CNSF Issues Statement in FY 2027 Budget Request for NSF
• USGS Coalition Issues Statement Urging Congress to Reject Proposed Budget Cuts
• Comments Sought on Nature Record National Assessment
• Enter the 16th Annual Faces of Biology Photo Contest

• Short Takes

  • NSF BIO Virtual Office Hour on April 22
  • Congress Reauthorizes SBIR, STTR Programs
  • NIH Ends Continuous Submission Policy
  • NSF to Examine Early-Career Researcher Pay
• From the Federal Register

In this issue:

• Action Alert: Urge Your U.S. Senators to Support Robust NSF Funding
• Trump Again Proposes Deep Cuts to Federal Science Funding in FY 2027
• Forest Service to Close Research Stations, Move Headquarters to Utah
• Endangered Species Panel Grants Sweeping Exemption for Gulf Drilling
• Trump Stocks PCAST with Tech CEOs
• New Executive Order Tightens Restrictions on Federal Contractors’ DEI Efforts
• HHS, EPA Announce Federal Push on Microplastics Research China Surpasses U.S. in R&D Spending Based on Purchasing Power
• AIBS Joins 1,300+ Organizations in Opposing Proposed Federal Grant Changes
• Science Coalition Requests At Least $9.9 Billion for NSF in FY 2027
• AIBS Endorses Letter in Support of FY 2027 Funding for EPA Science & Technology
• AIBS Endorses Letters Supporting CDC’s AMD and NWSS Programs
• Enter the 16th Annual Faces of Biology Photo Contest

• Short Takes

  • Comments Sought on Nature Record Assessment
  • Webinar on NSF TechAccess: AI-Ready America
  • NCAR Operator Files Lawsuit
  • NSF Launches Program to Accelerate Tech Solutions For Learning
• From the Federal Register

The proposal has sparked widespread concern, drawing more than 20,000 public comments in opposition before the March 30 deadline.

“Under the proposed changes, applicants and recipients of federal financial assistance would be required to sign new certifications under penalty of criminal and civil law,” the letter reads. “These certifications attempt to align with President Trump’s executive order and the U.S. Department of Justice guidance, which misrepresent diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs and activities as ‘illegal.’ The new certification also includes provisions on undocumented immigration and terrorism.”

Nonprofits caution that the proposed requirements are vague and overly complex, making compliance difficult to assess. This ambiguity could expose organizations to legal challenges and costly investigations even in the absence of wrongdoing, potentially forcing them to redirect staff time and resources away from mission-driven work to manage compliance obligations.

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

The letter in support of the CDC AMD program, signed by 24 organizations, calls for $175 million in fiscal year (FY) 2027 to support this critical public health and biosecurity infrastructure. It reads, in part:

“Established by Congress in FY 2014, the CDC’s AMD program enables the agency to integrate next-generation genomic sequencing and advanced data analytics into public health practice. Prior to the program’s inception, the U.S. experienced a widening technological gap, and the public health system was falling behind in pathogen genomics. Today, the AMD serves as a cornerstone of modern biosurveillance, providing modern genomic sequencing and data analysis tools that allow state and local health departments to rapidly detect, characterize, and track infectious diseases. Genomic data are also central in the development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, demonstrating that the benefits of AMD extend beyond the immediate public health impact and into the healthcare industry.”

The letter in support of CDC’s NWSS, signed by 20 organizations, requests at least $120 million for the program in FY 2027.

“Wastewater Surveillance is a powerful and cost-effective public health tool that provides early warning of infectious disease outbreaks – without requiring individuals to be symptomatic or tested for infection,” the letter reads. “Currently, NWSS supports wastewater surveillance data collection and reporting in all 50 states, seven territories, and several Tribal communities. Continued investment is vital to sustain and strengthen this program and ensure it can effectively inform U.S. biosurveillance, and health security efforts.”

Read the letters.

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

Then letter reads, in part: “Investing in fundamental research is imperative to win the international innovation race. The United States cannot afford to cede leadership in the fields that will define the future—including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, advanced materials, and biotechnology. The catalyst for those transformative technologies is basic research, which often yields applications unforeseen at the time of discovery. NSF is the premier agency supporting basic research in all fields of science and engineering. No one can predict where the next breakthrough will emerge, so we must bolster research across disciplines and their intersections.”

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