In this issue:

• Congress Passes Stopgap Funding Bill Blocking OMB Grants Rule
• Action Alert: Continue to Engage Congress on the OMB Grants Rule
• NSF Funding Shifts Reduce New Awards and Reshape Graduate Support
• USGCRP Seeks Comments on Proposed Changes to National Climate Assessment
• White House Releases National Security Science and Technology Strategy
• Interior Reassigns Senior Career Staff
• NSF Seeks Input on Future Ocean Observing Priorities
• Nominations Sought for AIBS Innovative Leadership Award
• Community Input Sought on the Future of NSF
• Last Chance to Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course

• Short Takes

  • NSF BIO Virtual Office Hour on September 16
  • NIH Names Pediatric Neurologist to Lead Child Health Institute
  • Lawsuit Challenges Effort to Dismantle NCAR
  • NIH Proposes Expanded Biosafety Oversight
  • NOAA Arctic Report Card Funding Canceled
  • International Student Visas Decline Sharply
  • UN: World Falls Short of 1.5°C Climate Goal
  • Republican Attorneys General Target National Academies Funding
• From the Federal Register

Date: October 14, 2026, 1:00PM - 3:00PM ET

Location: Online

Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the biological sciences, influencing how research is conducted, how students are trained, and how scientific knowledge is communicated and evaluated. This meeting will bring together researchers, educators, federal agency representatives, and ethicists to examine both the transformative potential and critical challenges of AI in biology. The program will feature invited presentations showcasing cutting-edge applications of AI in biological research and education, while addressing practical pitfalls, workforce impacts, and policy implications. A moderated panel discussion will further explore the ethical dimensions of AI integration, focusing on equity and access, environmental impacts, scientific publishing, transparency, authorship, and public trust in science. Designed for researchers, educators, students, and society leaders, this meeting will provide a timely forum for examining how the biological sciences community can engage thoughtfully and responsibly with AI as it becomes increasingly integrated across the scientific enterprise.’ Learn more about our speakers.

Who should attend?

Representatives to the AIBS Council, officers, board members, staff, and student representatives of AIBS member societies and organizations.

Registration

Registration for the 2026 AIBS Council Meeting is now open. Please complete the registration form as soon as possible as space is limited.

Opportunities and Guardrails for Integrating AI in Biology

Draft Council Meeting Agenda

Not a member of AIBS? Contact us to find out more about how to join AIBS.

The AIBS Innovative Leadership Award recognizes commendable innovative leadership in the biological sciences community.

Awards will be made at the discretion of AIBS, which may choose one award, no award, or multiple awards in any one year.

Nomination Requirements

Anyone may submit a nomination for award with the candidate’s permission. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations must clearly document why the candidate should be considered, above all others, for this distinguished award.

Nominations must be complete and include the nominee’s curriculum vitae or resume(s). While a CV or resume provides the committee with a more comprehensive overview of the nominee’s accomplishments and experiences, it is not a substitute for any of the required information listed below. After reviewing the initial nomination submissions, the committee may request additional information in order to properly evaluate nominees under consideration.

Each nominee will be evaluated based on the following required criteria:

• Innovative leadership in the institution(s) or organization(s) where they have been or are employed
• Innovative leadership in related initiatives in AIBS
• Innovative leadership in the biological sciences

Guidelines and Eligibility

• This award is intended to be given annually. The award will be not be given more than once to the same individual.
• Candidates must be or have been contributing members of our professional community, directly associated with innovative leadership and individuals who have made significant and demonstrable contributions in the biological sciences.
• Candidates may not be currently employees of the AIBS.
• Anyone may submit nominations for the award.
• Individuals are eligible for this award.

Unsure if the candidate you would like to nominate qualifies? Please reach out to us at membership@aibs.org and we will be happy to answer questions about the nominations process, guidelines, or eligibility.

Deadline

To nominate someone, please complete the form below no later than 05:00 PM Eastern Time on Friday, October 02, 2026.

Recognition

Individual award recipients will receive complimentary registration to an AIBS Professional Development Training Course. Recipients are also given a $500 honorarium or the option of donating the amount to an AIBS Initiative. With their approval, awardees will also receive additional recognition at AIBS events and on the AIBS website.

Submit your nomination today.

The organizations warned that the proposed changes could create substantial uncertainty for federal grant recipients by allowing agencies to withhold, suspend, or terminate grants and alter key terms and conditions during the period of performance. “The reach and impact would be extraordinary and extremely harmful,” the letter states, noting that recipients rely on predictable federal funding to support activities ranging from health care and education to disaster response, infrastructure, and scientific research.

The letter highlights particular concerns for the research community. It notes that cuts and delays to federal disease-research grants have already resulted in laboratory closures, job losses for graduate and postdoctoral researchers, and stalled research projects. “Unpredictable federal support pushes universities to chase short-term, low-risk projects instead of long-horizon studies needed to understand and prevent disease,” the organizations wrote, warning that such uncertainty could undermine the administration’s stated goal of advancing “Gold Standard Science.”

Read the letter.

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

Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026

Time: 10:00 – 11:00 AM Eastern Time

Location: 2325 Rayburn House Office Building

A sustainable economy relies heavily on the steady supply of biological resources and critical ecosystem services, including agricultural crops, forestry products, and aquaculture; effectively, our bioeconomy supports our broader economy. Healthy well-managed ecosystems are resilient to extreme climatic conditions such as drought and severe storms, buffering the built environment from their impacts. Ecosystem science provides the tools to understand, quantify, and manage these natural assets by enabling an understanding of ecological processes, such as nutrient cycling, water retention, and pollination, that directly underpin resilient agricultural, recreational, and urban landscapes. Ecosystem research centers provide a vital nexus for knowledge acquisition, education, and problem-solving to optimize these services for the bioeconomy. This briefing will feature speakers highlighting the role of ecosystem research in leveraging and protecting ecosystem services to promote a thriving bioeconomy across agriculture, watershed management, and aquaculture.

Moderated by:

• Dr. Joel Trexler, AERC President

Speakers:

• Dr. Bernard Engel, Glenn W. Sample Dean of Agriculture, Professor of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue University
  A Healthy Bioeconomy Requires a Healthy Ecosystem
• Mr. Dewey R. Houck II, Founder & Owner, Cypress Point Oyster Company; Retired SVP & Chief Data Analytics Officer, Boeing Defense, Space & Security
  What Restorative Aquaculture Means to a Healthy Ecosystem
• Dr. Jennifer Tank, Galla Professor of Biological Sciences, Director of the Notre Dame Environmental Change Initiative, University of Notre Dame
  Conservation Practices and the Bioeconomy: Ecosystem Research That Protects Farming and Freshwater

Presented by:

This event has ended. Review the resources below.

• 2026 AERC Briefing Program.
• 2026 AERC Briefing Slides.

AIBS is formally partnering with APS on this effort and encourages individuals across all scientific disciplines, career stages, and types of institutions to contribute their perspectives.

The initiative asks two questions:

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

Individuals affiliated with AIBS and AIBS member societies and organizations are encouraged to share their input through the NSF Forward survey to help ensure that the perspectives of the broader scientific community inform recommendations for NSF’s future.

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

In this issue:

• AIBS Comments Urge NSF Not to Align Grants Guidance with Proposed OMB Rule
• NSF Announces New Funding Opportunities; BIO to Host Virtual Office Hour
• NIH Seeks Input on Proposed Changes to Grant Peer-Review Outcome Reporting
• Lawsuit Challenges DHS Rule to Limit International Student Visas to Four Years
• DOJ Finds Three NSF STEM Education Programs Unconstitutional
• AIBS Joins APS in NSF Forward Initiative to Seek Community Input
• Action Alert: Call & Write Your Members of Congress About the OMB Grants Rule
• AIBS Launches Diana Wall Graduate Student Publication Excellence Award
• Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course

• Short Takes

  • NIH Restricts Research Intended to Inform Policymakers
  • NSF Narrows Title VI Nondiscrimination Rules
  • DOE Updates Scientific Integrity Directive
  • Decline in PhD Admissions Raises Concerns for U.S. STEM Workforce
  • Trump Order Calls for Changes to Childhood Vaccination Schedule
• From the Federal Register

As the comments put it: “Guidance that assumes the outcome of that rulemaking would treat the public comment now before OMB as a formality, and would carry into NSF’s own policies the features of that proposal most damaging to American science—political review in place of scientific merit, awards that can end when priorities shift, and new limits on how findings are shared.”

The letter identified several specific areas of concern, among them provisions that would allow political review of funding decisions, termination standards that could shift whenever the underlying regulation is amended without NSF proposing the change, a Summary of Changes that says publication costs are disallowed while the guides themselves treat them as allowable, and Dangerous Gain of Function provisions already overtaken by the government-wide policy issued on July 28.

AIBS asked NSF to withhold every provision that depends on the proposed rule, to retain current policy in the interim, and if and when OMB issues a final rule, to re-propose the affected sections for public comment.

Read the full comments.

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

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.

President Trump signed a continuing resolution on September 2 that keeps the government funded through December 11 and includes a provision blocking OMB from issuing or finalizing the proposed grants rule during that period. AIBS thanks the members of Congress who worked to include this provision and those who supported its passage.

But this is only a temporary reprieve. AIBS urges the scientific community to continue engaging with your members of Congress and ask them to build on this progress by pursuing a more permanent solution to the concerns raised by the proposed rule. Constituents should also urge Congress to use its oversight authority to ensure that individual federal agencies do not preemptively implement provisions of the proposed guidance before its finalized. For example, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education have proposed changes to policies governing federal financial assistance that, in some respects, align with provisions of the proposed OMB 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.

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.