Inside the Battle Over OMB’s Shocking Proposed Rule Changes: How Top US Chefs Are Fighting Back on Research Funding
What’s being proposed
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has put forward a comprehensive revision to 2 CFR Part 200, a regulation that impacts all federal research and education funding. The National Science Foundation, in coordination with OMB, is proposing to replace its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide with policies and procedures that align with the rules proposed by the OMB.
Taken together, these proposals would:
- Place political review over peer review. A senior political appointee would have authority to approve or reject any discretionary award as part of a pre-issuance review, and this review must consider if the award will demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities. The current merit-review system, where the expertise of review panels is core to the evaluation of proposals, insulates scientific judgment from politics. This additional review also adds a layer of bureaucratic delay and expense to the process.
- Expand the authority to terminate grants. Agencies would have broader discretion to terminate awards, with little notice, less process, and less recourse. For research that unfolds over years, this creates uncertainty that will affect what projects can be proposed and our home institution’s ability to underwrite the risk of employment opportunities and investments in research infrastructure.
- Curtail scholarly communication. Costs associated with publication and conference attendance would only be allowable if they are approved in advance by the funding agency, with the presumption that publication costs such as article processing charges and open-access fees would not be allowed.
- Restrict international collaboration. Proposed provisions would impose new requirements on grants involving foreign collaborators, making international collaboration more difficult.
What we’re asking you to do: Submit public comment
Post Comment