Proposed changes to biomedical research in the United States

We’ve mobilized together before when science has been in crisis in the United States. It’s time to do so again, in response to a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget. OMB-2026-0034 would:

• Allow political appointees final decision-making power on what grants to fund

  • This voids decisions guided by multiple layers of peer review from experts in the field

  • This biases decision-making away from the best scientific and medical practices to advance life-saving resource, and towards political agendas

• Restrict international collaboration, thereby diminishing the United State’s global leadership in biomedical research and reducing our capacity to bring advancements made and knowledge gained worldwide home to our communities

• Allow politicians to cancel active grants

  • This is incredibly dangerous, as it could leave participants in clinical trials without medical oversight or long-term follow-up

  • This is also incredibly dangerous and disheartening, as it could take away life-saving medications or behavioral interventions from people without any other options

• Allow private individuals to file lawsuits with the Department of Justice to block research that they don’t think is worth spending on

  • This could introduce chaos into our federal legal and health systems, straining resources and decreasing efficiency

  • This also again marks a striking turn away from expert-led peer review and towards opinions—violating the key principles of science

This proposed rule is dangerous and vastly consequential—not just for researchers, but also for:

• Patients who benefit from advancements in biomedical research

• Local economies that are enriched by research investments in their communities

• International communities

• Communities that have been historically disadvantaged and excluded from research

You can help stand up against this devastating proposed rule! Here’s how.

Leave a Public Comment on OMB-2026-0034

Add your voice to the 70,000+ public comments from researchers, clinicians, stakeholders, and supporters alike. For templates and help with writing and posting your comment, check out these resources from Society for Neuroscience and Research!America. Be sure to leave your comment by Monday, July 13th!

Read an Example Public Comment

Not sure where to start? Draw information from my public comment. Before you read, a few tips:

• Personalize your letter—template comments are less impactful.

• Speak from your personal and professional experiences—these stories are powerful!

• Make concrete points about this proposed rule’s effects on you, your local community, and the people you care about.

• Be sure to sign your letter.

Here’s some excerpts from the text of my comment. It’s long, so I didn't include the full comment! Please note that local resources for family activities follow in our resource section.

As a PI of a lab, an NIH-trained and funded neuroscientist, and an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Brain Health, I am writing to strongly oppose this OMB regulation.

My name is Dr. Lana Ruvolo Grasser, and I am the director of the Ruvvy Resilience Lab and Assistant Professor of Psychology and Brain Health at Wayne State University. I have studied biomarkers of trauma-related psychopathology in youth and the efficacy of creative arts and movement-based interventions for treating traumatic stress for almost 10 years. I have received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, have three grants under review with NIH, and have trained at NIMH as a postdoctoral research fellow. As an American citizen, I am also a beneficiary of federally funded medical research.

I am concerned about the following provisions and language in this rule:

That discretionary awards must "demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” This introduces political bias into the scientific process. There is nothing faculty, evidence-based, or within the framework of the scientific process about this determination process. This would derail a multi-level system that ensures the best quality work to advance medical progress and benefit the lives of the American people. (See section 200.205(d), which directly dismantles the post-WWII system used by NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA, and nearly every science agency, in which independent expert peer review was the primary measure of scientific merit. Under this rule, a political appointee can simply override the scientific community’s judgment with no finding of cause.).

That awards can be terminated at any time due to “inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities”, without any finding of noncompliance or fraud is required. This is incredibly dangerous from both a health perspective and an economic perspective. The abrupt cancellation of active grants would result in the loss of jobs. This would include research staff employed in labs. This also would have economic fallout for the surrounding region, as NIH grants generate economic outputs of more than $2 per every $1 invested in my state of Michigan. Finally, this would be dangerous for patients in clinical trials, whose medical treatment and monitoring would be stopped abruptly, potentially leaving them without access to lifesaving medication, or potentially leaving them without proper care and monitoring to ensure safety. People will die as a result of this rule (see section 200.340).

My lab aligns with the mission of the NIH and works to identify objective biomarkers of mental health disorders like posttraumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorders in youth. We also study behavioral, creative arts, and movement-based interventions to treat traumatic stress in youth. My lab would be directly affected by this rule. We could be barred from funding if it is determined that the study of trauma is not an administrative priority. We have already been affected by other changes at NIH that have delayed payment of grants, resulting in our team not receiving the funding to test a behavioral intervention for youth with anxiety and clinically impairing irritability. If that study had been actively running and was terminated, we could have had families in the midst of treatment left without therapeutic care and would have had to lay off at least six employees.

I urge OMB to withdraw this provision that is both destructive to the scientific research process as well as to the health and safety of the American people. This provision will decrease our competitiveness with other nations will set us back in terms of medical progress. This provision will also harm our economy. On behalf of myself, my participants and patients, and my team, I oppose this regulation.

The Greenhouse of the Mind:

Resources to Help You Bloom

Help Support Science Content & Communication

Our team is so excited to get the word out to the people we serve and inform for FREE … and your support will allow us to put more resources and energy into doing precisely that.

Your donations help fund the creation of content that translates our research into practice.

Consider supporting our outreach efforts:

Stay Resilient!