Statement: Statement: UChicago Comment on Proposed Federal Rule

Jul 14, 2026

The University of Chicago submitted the following comment on July 13, 2026, concerning a rule change proposed by the federal Office of Management and Budget that would affect the management of federal research grants. The proposed OMB rule can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001

The University of Chicago writes to express serious concerns about the proposed policies in the OMB guidance, which, as written now, would impede rather than promote the ability of our exceptionally talented faculty, researchers and students to contribute to the highest degree possible to new discoveries that benefit America and humanity.

The faculty and researchers at the University of Chicago have shown sustained devotion to scientific discovery, rigorous scholarship, cultivating of freedom of expression, and creating a genuine environment of truth-seeking and love of knowledge. It is from this perspective that we share these comments: What policies in the awarding of competitive research grants will advance knowledge to create the greatest benefit for the American people?

Our greatest concern is that this uniform policy change proposed by the OMB demotes the reliance on peer review and elevates the role of political appointees and policy criteria in the selection of awards. It is overly broad and does not consider how research in the public interest is best advanced in different areas. The science agency ecosystem in the United States has been second to none in the world for many decades precisely because the different agencies cultivate scientific discovery in very different ways. An agency like the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency has long elevated the role of program managers in the development of team projects that harness existing fundamental science discoveries to achieve major new technology breakthroughs. That is an area where policy choices can effectively inform and guide selection. An agency like the National Science Foundation, in contrast, has long supported the most fundamental science research, often awarding grants to individuals as well as groups. The types of fundamental questions in physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc., that the NSF uniquely supports are ones where political appointees are not as likely to make choices that advance the absolute best science. For individual grants, peer review is far more likely to be a better guide because scientists who study related topics know the science at question in depth.

Second, science often takes time. Efforts to provide uniform guidance may similarly have the unintended consequence of disrupting the ecosystem of science and technology in the U.S., as the needs across the research landscape are varied. One of the ways that universities serve this ecosystem is by taking on longer-term, broader research projects. There are countless examples of basic research at universities resulting in life-changing discoveries that would not have happened without the persistence that scientists are afforded at universities. American excellence in research requires some continuity across political administrations. Federal grants that provide longer-term funding underpin this critical aspect of the ecosystem, while other sources of funding and partners like those in industry complement the ecosystem in different ways. A portfolio that has both longer-term and shorter-term research horizons balances risk and opportunity, contributing to the greater whole. Multi-year scientific research studies are critical to the ecosystem. The suggested policy to introduce new review on individual grants that span administrations would distort ongoing research programs based on something other than their research data and best understanding in the field. The consequence would undermine the ability for universities to serve the Nation's interests in advancing the most ambitious research. Additionally, the uncertainty may hinder the Nation's talent pipeline as early-career scientists in particular would be discouraged from pursuing riskier but more ambitious research programs. Less predictability and reliability will slow rather than speed up discovery.

​Third, for researchers to remain at the cutting edge of their fields often requires collaboration with other leading investigators, including those in other countries. The American research and development ecosystem has attracted some of the most talented scientists, innovators, engineers, and entrepreneurs in generation after generation, many of whom advance cures for patients, create companies, and contribute to a thriving America. It is the experience of scholars at the University of Chicago that collaboration and free and open discussion with international colleagues have been essential to advancing knowledge and serving the Nation's interests. The proposal in the uniform guidance for a domestic-first priority, to the extent it would discourage robust international collaboration in all areas with scientists based on merit, would threaten American dominance in research. Care must be taken in sensitive areas of fierce competition to protect certain research activities, but international collaboration largely benefits from open inquiry. A blanket policy is not sufficient to address the nuanced needs in different domains of knowledge. Further, reducing international collaboration may negatively impact generations of students and researchers who will find other places for their talent to be fostered. It would inhibit those researchers who remain in the United States from gaining the benefits of incorporating knowledge from leading experts around the world to advance their research and generate insights that would benefit Americans.

A lot is at stake. The health, wealth and national security of Americans depend on our scientific leadership across the full spectrum of scientific inquiry, from the curiosity-driven, completely unexpected breakthrough, to the kind of project where the first of its kind technology is being developed. The proposed policy would do harm because it does not consider the different mechanisms needed to advance the best science to the benefit of the American people. We strongly urge the OMB to create a far more careful set of policies that allow for the application of the right kind of selection process to best advance the work of different agencies and the most promising scientific projects.