The following is my personal opinion and does not represent the view of the Planetary Science Institute and does not make any representations of behalf of the Planetary Science Institute.
I have been an active planetary scientist for 45 years, funded by federal awards primarily from NASA. I have served on numerous NASA advisory groups and panels, including advising on the grant selection process of a number of NASA programs. I have been a community advocate for federal funding of planetary-related grant programs and have testified before Congress on the subject. I have been a community leader, chairing the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Association. For more than 20 years, I was CEO of the Planetary Science Institute, during which I built it into one of the largest private employers of planetary scientists in the world. I retired from that position a little more than a year ago. As a “soft-money” institution, PSI depends upon being successful in the competitive acquisition of grant and contract awards. In that position I became quite familiar with the Uniform Guidance (2CFR200) and its antecedent regulations. I am consequently alarmed by the OMB proposal “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” and feel that it should be withdrawn or otherwise rejected in its entirety.
This proposal reflects anti-American and anti-science (equivalent to anti-God) values, it reduces the return on investment in federally funded science to the American taxpayer, it encourages corruption, it decreases transparency to the public, it cripples important international collaborations, and it is fundamentally uninformed and poorly crafted. The consequences to organizations like PSI and American science in general will be devastating. Even if a new Administration comes in two years from now and reverses everything, the damage will continue to be felt for years to come, and perhaps be irreversible.
Comments on some specific proposed provisions (not exhaustive) reinforce this perspective (provisions listed in the above Federal Register link):
§200.202(a)(iii) For the American people to get the maximum return on their tax dollar investment in science programs, federal grant programs cannot be designed around politics reflected in administration policies and priorities as articulated to date. This is regardless of party.
§200.202(c) This is redundant with existing agency policies and practice.
§200.202(d) Existing cost-principles in the Uniform Guidance prohibit any organization of any type from using funds from a financial assistance award for unallowable activities like political advocacy (this includes indirect costs generated by such an award). Different types of non-profit institutions should not be excluded per se.
§200.202(e)(1) An agency senior appointee (aka political officer) should not have the authority to authorize federal awards for research and development to foreign entities otherwise statutorily ineligible for such awards.
§202.202(e)(2) “Domestic-first” is very vague and provides no guidance. “International elements” is overly vague and would even include collaborations on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. In 200.205(e)(5), “international elements” would include an American scientist attending a scientific conference outside of the US, making all this exceptionally burdensome. This does not appreciate that American science has and continues to greatly benefit from international collaborations.
§200.202(e)(3). Poorly written. Adds a lot of burden to the agency. Assessments of foreign element value (if legal) are already part of the peer-review process.
§200.202(e)(4). This should be governed by statute.
§200.202(e)(5). This should be governed by statute.
§200.202(f). Ignorant. The vast number of federal grant awards (certainly by NASA and NSF) are multi-year.
§200.204(a)(1)&(2). Exempting grant competitions from public notice for “a risk to national security” or being “in the national interest of the United States” is extremely problematic. While one could imagine a narrow carve-out for national security exception when export control laws may be involved, “national interest” is so broad that it invites corruption by allowing limiting knowledge of a competition to favored entities.
§200.205(a)&(b) Subjecting federal award proposals to pre-issuance review by “senior appointees” (again, political officers) to ensure compliance with and the advancement of presidential policy priorities is completely adverse to making awards on the basis of scientific merit. It is soviet-style interference that makes support for the inferred principles underlying “gold standard science” a sham. “Gold standard science” as given in Executive Order 14303 is insufficiently detailed to be used as a practical basis of assessment for any proposal as far as its science is concerned.
§200.205(b)(1) Grant awards should not be political.
§200.205(b)(2) This is vague. Implementation in other government areas has had ridiculous results (e.g. scrubbing Enola Gay from websites). In my opinion, this and other like sections promote anti-American values.
§200.205(b)(3) There should always be an assessment of cost-effectiveness and maximizing return on investment. Indirect cost is just a part of this. I have been an open critic of NASA removing consideration of this from its peer-review of grant proposals. Higher indirect cost rates often would translate to lower cost competitiveness, which tended to decrease awards to institutions with higher rates.
§200.205(b)(4) This is nonsensical. The range of recipients has no predictable bearing on results and breakthroughs. It makes more sense given a group of similarly scientifically meritorious and cost-effective proposals, to make awards to a diversity of institutions to support the expansion of those institutions involved with the programs (thereby increasing the health of those programs).
§200.205(b)(5) Proposed administration policy here already demonstrates a lack of support for Gold Standard Science (which, frankly is already “standard” across the science community).
§200.205(b)(6) Proposals already include benchmarks for achieving identified scientific goals and objectives, and their assessment is a standard part of peer-review.
§200.205(b)(7) Institutional affiliation should not be considered in making discretionary awards except as a part of formal risk assessment. Scientific merit and cost-effectiveness as determined by peer-review should be the primary considerations in making an award.
§200.205(c) See §200.205(a)&(b).
§200.205(d) Ignorant. Peer review has always been advisory, but it has significant weight because these reviews are done ostensibly by subject-matter experts while program officers and other administrators have necessarily limited expertise.
§200.205(e) To my knowledge, no federal agency has ever been required to issue a discretionary award if the response to a NOFO has inadequate merit.
§200.206(b)(2)(vii) Way overbroad. A grant to a large university could be denied because of an instance of plagiarism by a professor in an unrelated department. Who can discredit a study? Who determines that a study is non-replicable? Who judges violations of civil rights laws? For the latter if it is not a court of law, this is deeply problematic.
§200.206(b)(2)(viii). This is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and due process under the 5th and 14th amendments.
§200.218. The rules against using federal funds to promote or support theories of “disparate-impact liability” in programs and projects are highly polemical and vague. It is not clear what is being covered. Excluding all demographic analysis in federally supported research is absurd. For instance, the development of effective education techniques would likely have important demographic correlations. Likewise for medical treatments. This section is overbroad and kind of dumb.
§200.220. Restrictions on the use of federal funds for bilateral or multilateral collaboration with “covered foreign countries” or entities affiliated with them should be restricted to federal statutes. To extend this to executive orders, subject to political whims (e.g., like the targets of tariffs), would be unpredictable and significantly disruptive of ongoing and future international scientific collaborations. The damage to US science would be incalculable. In fact, the “Wolf amendment” restricting the use of NASA funds for bilateral activities should be removed. China is moving ahead of the US in many areas of space and space science activities, and the only country being hurt by the Wolf amendment is the US.
§200.300. Since the release of Executive Order 14151, the federal government has been unable to provide any clarity to what was included in DEI that was to be prohibited, making implementation of the EO impractical. It is overbroad and in itself potentially discriminatory. Likewise, there is a lack of understanding regarding “biological reality”. I am also aware of many federal grant awards that have been made to religious organizations over the course of many decades.
§200.340(a)(2) Grant termination at the discretion of the Federal agency or pass-through entity is allowed “to the extent permitted by law” (which might also be considered “to the extent not excluded by law”). This is an unacceptable broadening of the current language “to the extent authorized by law”. The current language makes the arbitrary and capricious cancellation of grants more difficult.
§200.421 Banning communication with the public “about specific activities or accomplishments which result from the performance of the Federal award” and banning “conducting general liaison with news media and government public relations officers” on matters of public concern undermines transparency altogether. The public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being used and with what results, and they have a right to know who is doing this work and to engage them directly or through media representatives.
§200.432 Requiring each and every conference be expressly approved by the federal agency and included in the terms and conditions of the award is impractical and very burdensome to the agency. While there are some regular and predictable annual conferences, few conferences (especially of topical interest that would be of significant value to a funded project) are known more than a year out. Some have much shorter notices. In a multi-year award (common for NASA and NSF), a previously unidentified conference in, say, Year 2, would require not only agency approval, but require the agency to make a formal award modification (a time consuming and cumbersome process). This alone would significantly increase program management costs, reducing the amount for awards. There is no need to modify the existing Uniform Guidance language on conferences.
§200.450(c)(1)(iv) The restriction against “issue advocacy or public messaging” that “promotes or opposes” certain kinds of political positions is very broad and subject to unknowable interpretation by the government. Researchers could be exposed to punishment for purely academic discussion of their research results without any intention of being controversial. Science often informs discussions of issues, but to suppress science in anticipation (correctly or incorrectly) of how it might inform a discussion of an issue is in opposition to our national interests.
§200.454(b). Subscriptions by individuals and institutions to journals and technical periodicals are essential for much scientific research work.
§200.461 It is critical that federally funded research be published in peer-reviewed journals and that costs associated with publications continue to be allowable. It is a critical component of validating that research. It is essential for federal open access mandates and critical for transparency to the public.
