Urgent Request for Action on Proposed Rule Affecting Federal Funding Grant Review
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Yesterday I received an email from the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (MARFA), as well as Life Sciences PA and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). This was on a little publicized proposed change to the NIH scientific review process allowing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to have direct authority over the funding of grants which had passed the rigorous scientific review process. This proposed change by the current administration could negate decision made by NIH grant review panels as well as NIH program project directors and NIH administration as well as other funding agencies.
OMB has put a deadling of July 13, 2026 for comments by the public on this proposed change so it is of urgent matter that US scientists be informed of these potential changes.
I have included the three letters below: from MARFA, Life Sciences PA, and AACR.
From the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation
|
|
For decades, scientific breakthroughs in mesothelioma have depended on one essential principle: research should be guided by science. A proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could weaken that principle by allowing political appointees to override scientific peer review when making federal research funding decisions. It could also allow active federally funded research projects to be terminated if deemed inconsistent with changing agency priorities. For the mesothelioma community, the stakes are especially high. As a rare cancer, mesothelioma research already faces significant funding challenges. Every federal grant helps advance promising discoveries, supports clinical trials, and gives patients access to new treatment options. The proposal could also restrict international scientific collaboration—partnerships that are often essential for rare disease research, where researchers must work across borders to enroll enough patients and share critical scientific knowledge. Learn more about the Proposed Rule and how it affects mesothelioma patients and research. We need your voice. Please take just a few minutes to submit a public comment asking OMB to protect independent scientific peer review, preserve ongoing federally funded research, and support international collaboration for rare diseases. Submit your public comment here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance#open-comment The comment period is open until Monday, July 13th. Don’t delay submitting your comments. Every comment demonstrates that patients, families, researchers, clinicians, and advocates are paying attention and understand what is at stake. Thank you for standing up for the future of mesothelioma research. Together, we can help ensure that scientific discovery continues to be driven by evidence, collaboration, and the needs of patients.
|
From Life Sciences PA
|
|
From AACR
PHILADELPHIA – The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is deeply concerned that the recent action of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to propose a new set of regulations on how federal grants are awarded and managed is a major threat to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its lifesaving mission to accelerate progress for patients with cancer and the hundreds of other diseases that afflict millions of Americans.
AACR strongly opposes many of the changes that OMB has proposed in its recently issued rule, titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.” A considerable number of the regulations included in the rule, if finalized, will be extremely disruptive to the lifesaving research that the federal government funds and oversees, mainly through NIH.
Therefore, AACR calls on the Administration to abandon this harmful proposal, as proceeding along these lines will irreparably damage NIH, an agency that is widely revered as the world’s leading medical research enterprise for its support of the innovative discoveries and groundbreaking treatments that are increasing survival rates and enhancing the quality of life for patients.
According to OMB, the intention of these proposed revisions is to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal awards while reducing administrative burden and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources. While AACR shares these goals and supports efforts to strengthen the effectiveness, integrity, and accountability of federal grant programs, a significant number of the provisions in this proposal would in fact increase administrative complexity, create uncertainty for grant recipients, reduce transparency in funding decisions, and undermine the merit-based processes that have effectively guided federal research investments. In short, this OMB proposal is reckless and does not meet the high U.S. standards required for a meritorious, impactful research grant program.
AACR has identified several especially concerning provisions in this OMB proposal that will severely set back our nation’s medical science enterprise and delay the groundbreaking treatments that are pivotal to improving patient outcomes and saving lives:
- OMB proposes to markedly expand the power of political appointees to override expert assessment of scientific merit by subjecting every federal research funding decision to political review. These politically appointed officials are unlikely to have subject-matter expertise and would also be instructed to determine whether grant proposals are aligned with the Administration’s political priorities, regardless of their scientific merit. If political appointees are required to provide oversight of federal grant decisions and are allowed or encouraged to ignore the advice of highly qualified scientists, it will threaten the significant progress in patient outcomes that has been achieved over many decades.The merit review process, in which scientific experts in a particular field are brought together to review scientific proposals and assign scores that are based on the quality of the application and its potential to advance new knowledge, has underpinned many discoveries that have led to major improvements in public health. This objective approach to scientific review establishes a foundation of trust within the broader scientific community and throughout the U.S. population. Revising the rules to establish an environment that sidesteps traditional and transparent scientific metrics will weaken overall confidence in the U.S. research enterprise. [This area corresponds to provision 200.205 in the OMB proposal.]
- OMB proposes to expand agency authority to suspend or terminate awards based on changing political priorities at the agency or program goals that no longer align with the Administration’s concept of “Gold Standard Science,” which is a term the Administration uses to terminate research not because it is unsound, but because it does not fit a preferred political or methodological agenda. These suspensions and terminations could take place regardless of whether the recipient is performing the project based on the previously approved scope of work. Therefore, an active grant, including a multi-year award that is already underway, could be terminated because of a political or ideological agenda.This OMB-proposed provision would create uncertainty for researchers, institutions, and patients. As one example, this proposed change may have an adverse effect on patient accrual to cancer clinical trials, as patients with cancer may be less likely to enroll if ongoing support for these clinical trials is uncertain. Cancer research often requires years of sustained investment, and permitting political appointees to discontinue support for a grant or clinical trial after the grant or clinical trial has already been awarded or begun threatens scientific progress, wastes taxpayer resources, and destabilizes research programs and studies on which patients are relying for their survival. [This area corresponds to provisions 200.340; 200.341; and 200.342 in the OMB proposal.]
- OMB proposes to create additional barriers to scientific collaboration by imposing undue restrictions on international partnerships that are often essential for making advances against cancer and other human diseases. Modern cancer science relies on global networks of researchers, clinical trial participants, data resources, and specialized expertise. Limiting these collaborations will slow the pace of discovery and innovation. As one example among many, international collaborations are vitally important for pediatric cancer research. Because childhood cancers are rare, pooling global patient data, resources, and expertise accelerates clinical trials, drives breakthroughs in drug-resistant subtypes, and bridges survival disparities across high- and low-income countries. [This area corresponds to provisions 200.202 and 200.220 in the OMB proposal.]
- OMB proposes to prohibit all federal funding related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. OMB’s justification includes vague language that could be interpreted in ways that restrict research on cancer disparities, access to care, and differences in outcomes among all patient populations. Cancer touches every community, yet, sadly, its burden is not shared equally. A person’s race, ethnicity, income, ZIP code, insurance status, access to screening, ability to enroll in a clinical trial, and proximity to overall high-quality cancer care shape whether cancer is found early, treated effectively, and ultimately cured. [This area corresponds to provisions 200.218 and 200.300 in the OMB proposal.]
- OMB proposes to restrict activities that are fundamental components of innovative scientific research and that are essential to how research findings are shared and translated into patient benefit. Provisions in the OMB proposal to limit funding support for scientific publications, journal subscriptions, and attendance at scientific conferences would hinder the ability of researchers to disseminate discoveries, learn about emerging advances, and establish highly productive collaborations. [This area corresponds to provisions 200.432; 200.454; and 200.461 in the OMB proposal.]
For decades, the framework that supports America’s scientific research enterprise through agencies such as NIH and the National Cancer Institute has fueled transformative discoveries in cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and survivorship. This established system has reduced the U.S. cancer death rate by 35% since 1991, resulting in more than 4.8 million U.S. lives saved. This progress has been made possible because of research funding decisions guided by the rigorous review of grant applications by scientific experts and their assessment of these grants to improve public health—NOT guided by political and ideological considerations.
If this OMB-proposed regulation is ultimately finalized, it will severely weaken the U.S. federal research grant program that has supported American innovation and medical breakthroughs for decades. It will also upend the collaborative and evidence-based model that has resulted in U.S. leadership in cancer research and medical science.
Click here for Instructions on how to Submit a Comment to OMB
Click here to Contact Your Members of Congress about the proposal
It is imperative that all US scientists respond to this potential disasterous change. NIH grant review panels take their time out of their schedule to volunteer to review grants and committ great effort and time to this labor of love. In addition, those who write the grants have spent countless hours, days and months meticulous preparing exellent grants for review. These scientists show an utmost committment to the conduct of great science and a dedication to their field of expertise. Many volunteer countless hours and resources for their research, the scientific community and for patients. And most importantly, scientists include verbage and material in grants BASED ON SOUND SCIENCE, not their opinions.
Please take some time to respond to your lawmakers before July 13, 2026
Thank you
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa