OMG – Have You Been Following the OMB?
Tamar Schlekat, SETAC North America Executive Director
The U.S. scientific enterprise has been buzzing ever since the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under the leadership of political appointee Russell Vought, issued a proposal on 29 May to revise Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Financial Assistance guidance, Docket OMB-2026-0034.
While the scientific community, including SETAC North America, largely shares the proposal’s stated goals – transparency, accountability and careful stewardship of public funds – it quickly became clear that the proposed changes could have the opposite effect by reshaping how scientific research in the U.S. is funded, managed and shared. The 400-plus-page proposal lit up the scientific community. Among other concerns, it would weaken the role of scientific peer review in grantmaking, allow grant applicants to be screened based on affiliation, add barriers to international scientific collaboration, permit grant termination based on shifting “agency priorities,” and limit the use of grant funds for memberships, conference attendance, journal subscriptions, publication costs and open access fees – which are, incidentally, required in some cases. The entire proposal seems to have been written so that it, as the Heritage Foundation notes, “will hand ultimate decision-making on project funding to political appointees.”
Although the proposal was aimed at the U.S. community, the global ripple effects were easy to imagine and the response came fast. Meetings brought together scientists, business leaders and advocates from across the research ecosystem. Research and business leaders met with OMB and faculty held discussions at academic institutions. Scientific society CEOs jumped in, too. Articles appeared in scientific society newsletters, an editorial in Science, the leading U.S. scientific journal, was published. Finally, mainstream media, from the Washington Post to Forbes, got in on the action.
At the outset, many scientific societies, including SETAC North America, wrote to OMB requesting a 45-day extension to the comment period, given the length and scope of the proposed changes. In the meantime, SETAC North America also joined other scientific societies to support personal advocacy around the proposed rule and encouraged members of the newly created Science Policy Advocacy Affinity Group to submit comments.
On the day of the deadline, with no extension announced, SETAC North America submitted comments on the OMB proposal. SETAC North America asserted that the proposed changes would harm the U.S. science and technology enterprise, the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. The comments also warned that the proposal would reverse decades of successful science policy and impede the collaborative research ecosystem that has contributed so much to U.S. scientific leadership and competitiveness. SETAC North America urged OMB to withdraw or substantially revise the proposed rule. The letter was later circulated to chairs of the congressional Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Environment and Public Works to urge them not to endorse such policies. SETAC members are encouraged to use it to advocate directly with their government representatives to reject the proposal.
Author contact: [email protected]