Persistence is Powerful
On Friday, shortly after NIH’s webinar (recording forthcoming) on its Unified Funding Strategy, the agency released a new Request for Information (RFI) on “Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review.” The proposal includes sorting applications into one of three categories: “most competitive,” “competitive,” or “not discussed.” These impact categories would be released in lieu of final impact scores or percentiles. Specifics about how grants were prioritized would be withheld, not only from applicants, but from NIH program staff, Institute and Center leadership, and Advisory Councils.
The guidance is only in draft form, and comments are due Oct. 13. At first blush, we at Research!America are wondering: how does it serve the American public for the NIH grant review system to become less transparent? Secrecy compromises accountability. It breeds uncertainty, inefficiency, and distrust. Another question: does less data arising from grant reviews compromise the ability of Congress to exercise oversight or the agency’s own ability to assess and improve its funding choices over time?
There are other open RFIs as well. Make your voices heard – click here for opportunities to comment.
On the Hill: On the potential good news front, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) recently said that she believes the Senate-passed continuing resolution, which includes language preventing OMB from finalizing its rule before Dec. 11, could pass the House soon after the August recess.
Russ’s Corner
The NIH RFI mentioned above, which would reduce grant review transparency, comes at the same time that OMB is attempting to stack the deck in favor of politicized decision making. It is also at the same time that positions throughout the executive branch (including at NIH) are being reclassified from career civil service to so-called Schedule F positions, which are lacking in civil service protections.
While some have suggested that deriving and reporting grant impact scores on a scale of 1-100 is an example of false precision, and while we all support sensible reform, the NIH proposal to collapse proposals into three categories cannot be viewed in isolation. Sunlight, as Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, is said to be the best disinfectant, and we need more light, not less.
OMB’s proposed rule and these other proposed actions, taken together, increase the risk that scarce federal funds won’t go to the best use to advance medical progress. Despite what the American public says. Despite what patients need. That’s why we can’t let advocacy waver.
Good news or bad news, more agency actions or fewer, we’ve got to keep fighting to stop the proposed rule and its pre-application across federal grant-making agencies. Below is one repeat advocacy request and one new one. Both can seem challenging, but end up being surprisingly straightforward. Go for it:
- Call your representatives’ local district offices. If you haven’t done so yet, now is the time. Our August Recess Advocacy Guide walks you through making these calls and provides talking points to make your case that the proposed rule should be stopped.
- Write a letter to the editor. Look for a recent article about a medical breakthrough, research at a local university, or funding cuts, and use that as a jumping-off point to explain why federal research funding matters and why the OMB’s proposal threatens our nation’s ability to advance discovery and innovation. Our Writing a Letter to the Editor 101 guide provides step-by-step instructions for engaging with your local media. Letters published in small and regional press carry a lot of weight with members of Congress who pay attention to what their constituents are saying back home.
Because of our efforts together, inside and outside of the research community, we are making progress. We’ve got to keep at it.
Russ
Special Alliance Member-only Meeting: We’ll be discussing OMB’s proposed rule, pending RFIs, and FY27 appropriations during our next alliance member-only meeting. We are thrilled to be joined by Laura Friedel, senior policy advisor with Alston & Bird, and previously clerk and staff director for the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Labor-HHS Subcommittee. This off-the-record Zoom meeting will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 1, from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. ET. Watch your inbox for a registration link if you are with an alliance member organization. If your organization is not yet a member, there’s no time like the present! Email Donald Cook to start the wheels turning on membership and join the meeting as our guest.
Call for Quotes from Patient Groups: Staff on Capitol Hill have asked that we collect quotes from patients and patient advocacy organizations in response to OMB’s proposed rule. If you are one of those, your voice can help staffers see beyond what can appear to be unremarkable policy changes to their harmful human impacts. If your organization would be willing to provide a quote, whether from submitted comments or a quote written now, please email Lara Larson.
2026 National Health Research Forum: Registration is open for our 31st National Health Research Forum! Join us on Wednesday, Sept. 23, at the Grand Hyatt Washington in Washington, D.C. This year’s program features an early-career researcher poster and networking session, the release of our updated medical and health research investment report, and interactive discussions focused on strengthening the path to medical progress. The Forum is free, but space is limited, so secure your spot today.