Ä¢¹½´«Ã½

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past several weeks, members of our research community have received information regarding opportunities to provide feedback on federal Requests for Information (RFIs) and proposed policy changes, including recent notices from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Management and Budget.

We encourage members of our community to share their perspectives with the Office of the Vice President for Research and the Office of Government and Community Relations so that those insights may help inform the University’s consideration of these matters and, where appropriate, the development of official institutional responses.

We also encourage those who wish to do so to submit comments directly to NIH, OMB, or other sponsoring agencies. Individual perspectives can play an important role in helping policymakers understand the practical implications of proposed changes for researchers, trainees, staff, institutions, and the broader research enterprise.

If you choose to submit comments directly, please do so in your individual capacity. Unless specifically authorized, comments should not be submitted on behalf of the Ä¢¹½´«Ã½ or presented as representing an official University position. While individuals may identify their professional expertise and University affiliation for purposes of identification, any opinions, recommendations, or statements expressed should be clearly understood as their own. Additional guidance regarding individual and institutional advocacy activities is available in the University’s Lobbying Activities Policy.

Thank you for your continued contributions to the research community.

Warm regards,
Steve

Stephen Dewhurst, PhD
Vice President for Research

P.S. – For those who choose to submit comments directly to NIH, OMB, or other federal agencies, the following suggestions may be helpful:

• Remember that comments submitted through federal rulemaking and RFI processes generally become part of the public record. Please do not include confidential, proprietary, or personal information.
• Submit comments as an individual unless you have been specifically authorized to represent an official University position. While you may identify your University affiliation and professional role, your comments should clearly reflect your personal views and expertise.
• Consider identifying the specific provision, question, or policy proposal to which you are responding and explain why it is relevant to your work.
• Describe how the proposed change could affect your research, scholarship, trainees, research team, collaborations, patients, community partners, or other activities. Concrete examples and specific impacts are often more helpful than general observations.
• Where possible, provide evidence, data, or examples that support your perspective.
• Conclude by clearly stating any recommendation you would like the agency to consider.

There are a number of provisions in the , however the following may be of particular interest to members of the research community, including:

• 200.202(e) and §200.220 — Restrictions on foreign research collaborations and the application of a “domestic-first” framework for federally funded research activities.
• 200.205(b)-(d) — Review of discretionary awards by senior political appointees, including provisions that would make peer review advisory rather than determinative in funding decisions.
• 200.340(a)(2) and §200.340(e) — Expanded authority for agencies to terminate or temporarily suspend awards when deemed to be in the agency’s interest or the national interest.
• 200.461 — Treatment of publication costs, including article processing charges and open-access publication fees, as generally unallowable expenses under federal awards absent prior agency approval.