BU Leaders Ask Federal Government to Reconsider Changes to Research Grants’ Approval Process Rules
BU leaders have written to the federal government to oppose proposed changes on how federal research grants are awarded.
BU Leaders Ask Federal Government to Reconsider Changes to Research Grants’ Approval Process Rules
University’s letter says changes “would limit scientific discovery by injecting uncertainty”
Boston University has written to the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB), opposing a proposed rule that would significantly change how the federal government awards research grants, arguing that the rule would make it harder for BU investigators to do their work.
“The proposed rule,” the letter noted, “would limit scientific discovery by injecting uncertainty into the conduct of research, jeopardizing the merit-based grant review process, creating barriers to the public dissemination of federally funded research, and discouraging international collaboration.” The letter was signed by President Melissa Gilliam, Provost and Chief Academic Officer Colin Duckett, and Vice President and Associate Provost for Research Kenneth Lutchen.
BU joins other universities, scientific societies, nonprofit organizations, and localities in opposing the rule. The Association of American Universities, of which BU is a member, also sent a letter to OMB on Monday listing a number of concerns. To date, OMB has received more than 292,000 public comments on the proposed rule, with many scientists and researchers warning of harmful consequences.
Changes under the proposed rule include empowering political appointees to discontinue funding after a grant has been awarded and research has begun, without giving detailed reasons and with limited ability for appeal; devaluing the role of peer review in awarding grants; and curbing federal support for collaborations with scientists abroad. BU leaders fear the changes could delay the issuance of grant awards—make it harder for BU faculty to share their research results with the public—and create barriers for critical public health, education, and social science research.
OMB says the changes are necessary to increase transparency and accountability, and reduce regulatory burdens in the research grants process.
The BU letter, submitted as part of the public comment period that ended July 13, said that the changes would jeopardize development of the nation’s critical STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workforce. Federal grants “provide essential support” for training graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, the letter said.
“The proposed rule,” the University leaders wrote, “would allow for the capricious termination of federal grant awards without justification and with significantly limited opportunity for grantees to appeal. It would also give agencies greater authority to suspend grants. Uncertainties caused by grant terminations or lengthy grant suspensions would substantially hamper researchers’ ability for long-term planning, particularly for early-stage investigators.
“Last year, unexpected federal grant terminations forced BU researchers to reduce the number of personnel in their labs, halt data collection, and end research projects midstream. They were unable to make progress on research projects, which, in effect, undermined the initial federal investment,” the letter noted.
The new rule would circumvent peer-review processes laid out in statutes such as the CHIPS and Science Act, the letter said, adding, “The proposed rule would require that federal agencies ‘designate one or more senior appointees to conduct a pre-issuance review of all discretionary awards’ to ensure they ‘demonstrably advance the President’s priorities.’ The criteria that will guide such review is left unclear. We are concerned this will impede the timely disbursement of awards to recipients, as we have already seen significant delays in the release of congressionally appropriated funds from science agencies due to the increased involvement of senior appointees.”
The letter cited BU’s pioneering Framingham Heart Study, a 78-year-old project supported by the National Institutes of Health. Though “not created to advance political priorities,” the letter said, “the landmark study resulted in our current understanding of the risk factors that lead to heart attack and stroke, transforming the treatments for cardiovascular disease.
“Today, we know human health is better for it.”
Prohibiting federal support for certain research activities outside the US, the letter said, would potentially limit American universities’ participation in international conferences, data sharing, and scholarly exchanges that are crucial to creating new knowledge. As an example, the letter said that BU physicists collaborate regularly with the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, “working together to understand the very nature of the universe.”
The letter concluded, “Boston University investigators proudly conduct research that benefits the American public and the world. Their ability to advance scientific discovery and improve our nation’s well-being is contingent upon a federal commitment to scientific merit, transparency, and fairness. We urge you to withdraw or significantly change the proposed rule in favor of a regulatory environment that promotes excellent science, catalyzes innovation, and spurs human flourishing.”
BU’s Office of Research has posted information resources about the proposed rule for faculty.