The proposed rule would, among many other changes, authorize federal agencies to terminate active research awards when administration priorities shift; insert political appointees into the final step of the grant selection process, giving them authority to override the judgment of independent scientific peer reviewers; make publication costs and open access fees unallowable by default, in direct conflict with existing federal open access requirements; and restrict a wide range of routine research activities—from professional society memberships and journal subscriptions to conference attendance—through new approval requirements and cost prohibitions. The criteria that would govern these decisions, including what constitutes administration priorities or the national interest, are left undefined in the proposed rule, offering grantees little basis to anticipate, understand, or respond to adverse decisions.

Science does not run on a four-year clock. Clinical trials, long-term ecological studies, and other multi-year research programs require sustained commitment to produce results—and the patients, communities, industries, and scientific fields that depend on them cannot absorb the disruption of a politically motivated midstream termination. Beyond the immediate harm, a grants system redesigned to be easily redirected with each change in administration would be a death trap for American scientific innovation and leadership. The mechanisms this proposed rule would put in place could be used by any administration to substantially reshape the research enterprise on the basis of political preference rather than subject matter expertise used to assess independent scientific merit. Merit-based scientific peer review is a cornerstone of research integrity that has driven the world’s leading scientific endeavors for decades. Threatening it is a risk no administration should create. At a time when the United States faces intensifying global competition in science and technology, and when other nations are investing heavily in stable, long-term research programs, the U.S. cannot afford to undermine the reliability of its own research funding environment.

AIBS will submit formal comments opposing this proposed rule and will work in coalition with peer scientific societies, research universities, and other stakeholders to mount a coordinated response from the scientific community. We call on the research community, our member societies and organizations, and all those who depend on a strong scientific enterprise to add their full-throated voices. Comments are due on or before July 13, 2026, and may be submitted at regulations.gov, docket OMB-2026-0034.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• Trump Administration Proposes Sweeping Changes to Federal Award Processes
• More Science Funding Bills Advance in the House
• CDC Pulls Back Changes to Vaccine Advisory Committee
• Roll Back of PFAS Drinking Water Protections
• More Leadership Turmoil at NIH Institute
• Overseas Research Collaborations Under More Scrutiny
• AIBS Joins Letter Expressing Concerns About Proposed Forest Service Reorganization
• Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy

• Short Takes

  • Nondisclosure Agreement Proposed for Federal Workers
  • Senate Confirms New Director of BLM
  • Funding Opportunity: AI-based Health Research
• From the Federal Register

“Congress has explicitly restricted the use of FY 2026 appropriated funds to conduct agency reorganizations, including provisions stating that funds may not be used to ‘eliminate programs or projects, relocate an office or employees, or reorganize offices, programs, or activities’ without prior approval from the Committee on Appropriations,” the letter reads. “The proposed changes to USFS reflect a large-scale restructuring that potentially violates appropriations law and warrants close congressional oversight to ensure no legal limits are crossed.”

The letter outlines specific requests, including the need for robust congressional oversight and ensuring that appropriated funds for USFS Research and Development are used as intended.

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• Meet with Your Lawmakers This Summer and Help Inform Science Policy
• House Advances FY 2027 Science Spending Bills
• New Science Indicators Report Warns U.S. Is Losing Ground to China
• Democratic Lawmakers Press White House Over NSF Board Firings
• AIBS Joins Letter in Support of NSF’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
• AIBS Submits Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for NSF
• Coalition Urges Senate to Hold Confirmation Hearing for NSF Director Nominee

• Short Takes

  • Administration Moves to Scale Back CDC Role in Global HIV Program
  • Universities Sue NSF Over Moves to Restructure NCAR
  • Agencies Seek Public Comment on Anti-DEI Contract Requirements
  • House Science Democrat Asks GAO to Examine Information Collection on STEM Workforce Needs
  • CDC Head Calls for New Journal
  • Trump Administration Reverses Biden-Era Public Lands Rule
  • Museums for All Webinar
• From the Federal Register

“Although Mr. O’Neill was previously confirmed by this Committee for a position at Health and Human Services, the NSF Director position is fundamentally different, thereby requiring a hearing,” the letter reads. “For more than a year, NSF has been led on an acting basis by its Chief of Staff—a dedicated public servant who has ably led the agency, but without the statutory authority, the mandate, or the full institutional standing that a Senate-confirmed Director carries. During this period of leadership uncertainty, NSF has faced significant disruptions, the departure of more than 30 percent of its staff, the relocation of its headquarters, and the troubling recent dismissal of all members of the National Science Board. The agency and America’s scientific enterprise urgently need Congressional support and a confirmed and accountable leader. The questions surrounding NSF’s direction—its funding priorities and its commitment to supporting the full breadth of fundamental research—deserve genuine examination by Congress. A confirmation hearing is precisely the venue for these questions.”

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The SBE Directorate is slated for termination under the President’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. “Even though our organizations represent scientific and technological fields that primarily receive research funding from other parts of NSF, we view SBE as a critical asset for advancing our respective scientific missions,” the groups argue.

The letter reads, in part:

“Many of the nation’s most pressing policy questions have a scientific or technological component that needs to be understood through a human lens, including through integrated modeling and design approaches that combine technical systems with human behavior. That is where the research that SBE supports comes into play, providing crucial data and theoretical frameworks that inform work across the entire research enterprise, including the biological, computer and information sciences, engineering, and the mathematical and physical sciences. Examples include research on team collaboration informing engineering design and understanding economic incentives for energy efficiency, as well as examining the impact of modern air power for national security. NSF’s support for SBE has even resulted in a remarkable number of economics Nobel laureates. Solving the most challenging modern research and development problems, such as the societal impacts of AI, cybersecurity, or public health, requires more than just technical research; the persistent barriers are fundamentally human.”

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

“I am grateful for the experience, which has enriched my professional development. I am particularly pleased to think that we started a conversation with Rep. Joyce Beatty’s office that will continue in the future. I encourage everyone to reach out beyond their scientific community, which includes explaining your science to your district offices.”

-- Coralie Farinas, Graduate Student, Ohio State University

Biological Sciences Congressional District Visit

ⓘ

The Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event is held during the summer and early fall each year. Meetings typically take place between mid-July and the end of October. Participating scientists can either meet with their elected officials at the local district office or invite them to visit their research facility. Tours of research facilities are especially encouraged, as such visits provide lawmakers with a personal connection to the scientific activities taking place in their district.

AIBS will schedule the meetings with lawmakers and will prepare participants through online training and one-on-one support.

“We were able to share with Representative Veronica Escobar’s (D-TX) District Director what natural history collections were and how important federal funding was to museums like us. This program was a great first step to building a relationship with our local elected officials and to let them know what resources there are in the area.”

-- Dr. Vicky Zhuang, Biodiversity Collections Manager, University of Texas, El Paso

How to Participate

Registration for the 2026 event is free but required. Registration closes on July 13, 2026. Register below.

Note: Participants are responsible for checking their employer’s policies regarding involvement in public policy and about organizing a tour on site.

Need more information? Check out the Frequently Asked Questions.

Have questions? Contact us.

We Need Your Help!

AIBS is seeking organizational Sponsors and Supporters to help ensure the success of this event and to defray the costs of the training program and the preparation of materials.

• For a $750 contribution, your organization will be listed as an event Sponsor on all promotional materials.
• For a $500 contribution, your organization will be listed as an event Supporter.

Please help advance biology by becoming a Sponsor of the 17th Annual Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event.

Click here to join us as a sponsor or contact us to learn more before you decide.

2026 Sponsors and Supporters:

Please complete the registration form as soon as possible as space is limited.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The testimony reads, in part: “Providing NSF with at least $9.9 billion in FY 2027 is necessary to reverse years of underinvestment in research. This funding would strengthen and expand the U.S. bioeconomy while enabling NSF to accelerate work at the frontiers of science and engineering, including strategic priorities such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and advanced biomanufacturing. It would also support critical research on infectious diseases and pandemics, closing key knowledge gaps regarding the spread and evolution of biological threats.”

NSF received an 8% budget cut in FY 2024, flat funding in FY 2025, and a 3.4% cut in FY 2026 — well below the targets established under the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. AIBS urged Congress to reject the 55% budget cut for NSF and plan to dismantle the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate proposed in the President’s budget and instead restore the agency to its FY 2023 funding level, reaffirming our national commitment to scientific excellence.

“To remain at the global forefront of innovation and to fully realize the benefits of NSF-supported research, the government must make bold and sustained investments in NSF,” AIBS argued. “Unpredictability in funding disrupts research programs, creates uncertainty in the research community, and stalls the development of the next great idea. Enacting robust funding increases for NSF will allow for critical federal investments in scientific research, education, and the STEM workforce pipeline, especially as the agency undergoes a major reorganization.”

Read the testimony submitted to House appropriators. A similar letter will be submitted to the Senate.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• White House Dismisses National Science Board
• AIBS Statement on Dismissal of National Science Board
• Biologists Advocate for Robust Science Funding During AIBS Congressional Visits Day
• House Begins Work on FY 2027 Appropriations
• USDA Advances Reorganization Plan, Continues Push to Close BARC
• Congress Scrutinizes FY 2027 Science Agency Budget Requests
• AIBS Provides Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for Smithsonian Institution, USGS, USFWS, and EPA
• AIBS Submits Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for NIH

• Short Takes

  • White House Withdraws NPS Director Nomination
  • House Science Republicans Target NASEM Climate Report
  • EPA Announces Leader for New Science Office
  • National Academies Seek Experts in Animal Health & Conservation Research
  • NSF CAREER Program Informational Webinar
  • Nature: More than 100 Science Advisory Committees Terminated Under Trump
  • NSF Office of Polar Programs Office Hour
  • Bipartisan Wildlife Corridor Bill Introduced
• From the Federal Register

AIBS Communications Boot Camp Participants.

ⓘ

The event began with a two-day communications and advocacy training program designed to help participants strengthen their ability to communicate effectively about their research with the public, policymakers, and the media. Scientists then headed to Capitol Hill on April 22, where they met with members of Congress and their staff. These meetings gave participants an opportunity to apply the skills developed during the training while advocating for strong federal support for scientific research.

At a pivotal moment for the U.S. scientific enterprise, these meetings were an opportunity for scientists to help lawmakers understand the importance of sustained, predictable federal investments in research and the benefits those investments deliver to their districts and states. Participants urged Congress to provide at least $9.9 billion for the National Science Foundation and $51.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health in fiscal year (FY) 2027. Many also highlighted the need for renewed investments in science programs at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior.

In addition, participants called on Congress to reject the steep cuts to science proposed in the President’s FY 2027 budget request and to ensure that appropriated funds are spent by agencies as directed by Congress. In total, AIBS coordinated 66 meetings with congressional offices, including 36 Republican offices, 29 Democratic offices, and one Independent office.

Ossoff photo (L-R): Leah Oliver, Nicholas Macias, Sen. Jon Ossoff, Aaron David, Jennifer Owen, and Sahas Barve

ⓘ

Scientists from 20 states and the District of Columbia took part in the event. Several AIBS member societies sponsored participating scientists, including the American Society of Mammalogists, Botanical Society of America, Helminthological Society of Washington, Mycological Society of America, Organization of Biological Field Stations, and Society for the Study of Evolution. The 2025 AIBS & SURA Public Policy Fellow, Anna Rader Groves, also attended. View more images of the event.

This event was made possible in part through the generous support of AIBS members who contribute to the organization’s public policy efforts. To learn more about supporting science policy initiatives, contact the AIBS Public Policy Office.

This event was made possible in part through the generous support of AIBS members who contribute to the organization’s public policy efforts. To learn more about supporting science policy initiatives, contact the AIBS Public Policy Office.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The NSB is the governing body of the National Science Foundation (NSF), an agency that serves as the backbone of the American scientific enterprise. For decades, the NSB has functioned as an independent body of experts, with members serving staggered, six-year terms. This structure was intentionally designed to insulate the nation’s scientific priorities from the shifts of political cycles, ensuring that American innovation is guided by merit, evidence, and long-term strategic vision.

This dismissal is compounded by the fact that NSF has been without a Senate-confirmed Director for more than a year. The simultaneous absence of a permanent Director and the sudden dissolution of the Board leaves the nation’s premier science agency without the critical leadership necessary to oversee its strategic mission.

This decision threatens to erode public trust in federal science and jeopardizes the United States’ standing as a global leader in science and technology. At a time of intensifying international competition, the U.S. must maintain the leadership and stability of its premier science agency. Restoring independent, expert-led governance is essential to ensuring the American scientific enterprise continues to drive national prosperity, health, and security.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The testimony reads, in part:

We encourage Congress to provide new funding to the Smithsonian Institution in FY 2027, including at least $60 million to the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) with robust funding to support scientific and curatorial work. We urge Congress to provide the USGS with $1.85 billion in FY 2027 and preserve its Ecosystems Mission Area. We further request that funding for Science Applications within USFWS be sustained in FY 2027. Lastly, we request that Congress provide EPA Science and Technology with at least $876 million in FY 2027.

Robust federal investments in scientific research and monitoring that improves our understanding of biological diversity and ecosystem function must be a priority, urged AIBS, noting that the agencies funded by this appropriations bill are centrally involved in conducting, supporting, and using this scientific research. “Shrinking budgets and workforce for these agencies will strain our ability to address national challenges and remain a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation,” argued AIBS.

Read the testimony submitted to House appropriators. A similar letter will be submitted to the Senate.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

AIBS urged Congress to provide NIH with a base budget of at least $51.3 billion in FY 2027, an increase of 8.7% over the FY 2026 enacted level, arguing that this level of funding is needed to “advance priority areas, including chronic and infectious diseases, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, mental health, and nutrition science, as well as the application of artificial intelligence in biomedical research.”

AIBS further requested Congress to ensure that appropriated funds are spent as intended and that funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) supplements, rather than supplants, NIH’s base budget. “ARPA-H’s mission to support high-risk, high-reward research should complement NIH’s core role in advancing fundamental science.”

Read the testimony.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

In this issue:

• FY 2027 NSF Budget Request Slashes BIO Funding, Terminates SBE
• NIH’s Budget Request for FY 2027
• Trump Nominates New CDC Director
• Senate Agriculture Chair Pushes Back on Forest Service Move
• CNSF Issues Statement in FY 2027 Budget Request for NSF
• USGS Coalition Issues Statement Urging Congress to Reject Proposed Budget Cuts
• Comments Sought on Nature Record National Assessment
• Enter the 16th Annual Faces of Biology Photo Contest

• Short Takes

  • NSF BIO Virtual Office Hour on April 22
  • Congress Reauthorizes SBIR, STTR Programs
  • NIH Ends Continuous Submission Policy
  • NSF to Examine Early-Career Researcher Pay
• From the Federal Register

In this issue:

• Action Alert: Urge Your U.S. Senators to Support Robust NSF Funding
• Trump Again Proposes Deep Cuts to Federal Science Funding in FY 2027
• Forest Service to Close Research Stations, Move Headquarters to Utah
• Endangered Species Panel Grants Sweeping Exemption for Gulf Drilling
• Trump Stocks PCAST with Tech CEOs
• New Executive Order Tightens Restrictions on Federal Contractors’ DEI Efforts
• HHS, EPA Announce Federal Push on Microplastics Research China Surpasses U.S. in R&D Spending Based on Purchasing Power
• AIBS Joins 1,300+ Organizations in Opposing Proposed Federal Grant Changes
• Science Coalition Requests At Least $9.9 Billion for NSF in FY 2027
• AIBS Endorses Letter in Support of FY 2027 Funding for EPA Science & Technology
• AIBS Endorses Letters Supporting CDC’s AMD and NWSS Programs
• Enter the 16th Annual Faces of Biology Photo Contest

• Short Takes

  • Comments Sought on Nature Record Assessment
  • Webinar on NSF TechAccess: AI-Ready America
  • NCAR Operator Files Lawsuit
  • NSF Launches Program to Accelerate Tech Solutions For Learning
• From the Federal Register

The proposal has sparked widespread concern, drawing more than 20,000 public comments in opposition before the March 30 deadline.

“Under the proposed changes, applicants and recipients of federal financial assistance would be required to sign new certifications under penalty of criminal and civil law,” the letter reads. “These certifications attempt to align with President Trump’s executive order and the U.S. Department of Justice guidance, which misrepresent diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs and activities as ‘illegal.’ The new certification also includes provisions on undocumented immigration and terrorism.”

Nonprofits caution that the proposed requirements are vague and overly complex, making compliance difficult to assess. This ambiguity could expose organizations to legal challenges and costly investigations even in the absence of wrongdoing, potentially forcing them to redirect staff time and resources away from mission-driven work to manage compliance obligations.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The letter in support of the CDC AMD program, signed by 24 organizations, calls for $175 million in fiscal year (FY) 2027 to support this critical public health and biosecurity infrastructure. It reads, in part:

“Established by Congress in FY 2014, the CDC’s AMD program enables the agency to integrate next-generation genomic sequencing and advanced data analytics into public health practice. Prior to the program’s inception, the U.S. experienced a widening technological gap, and the public health system was falling behind in pathogen genomics. Today, the AMD serves as a cornerstone of modern biosurveillance, providing modern genomic sequencing and data analysis tools that allow state and local health departments to rapidly detect, characterize, and track infectious diseases. Genomic data are also central in the development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, demonstrating that the benefits of AMD extend beyond the immediate public health impact and into the healthcare industry.”

The letter in support of CDC’s NWSS, signed by 20 organizations, requests at least $120 million for the program in FY 2027.

“Wastewater Surveillance is a powerful and cost-effective public health tool that provides early warning of infectious disease outbreaks – without requiring individuals to be symptomatic or tested for infection,” the letter reads. “Currently, NWSS supports wastewater surveillance data collection and reporting in all 50 states, seven territories, and several Tribal communities. Continued investment is vital to sustain and strengthen this program and ensure it can effectively inform U.S. biosurveillance, and health security efforts.”

Read the letters.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

Then letter reads, in part: “Investing in fundamental research is imperative to win the international innovation race. The United States cannot afford to cede leadership in the fields that will define the future—including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, advanced materials, and biotechnology. The catalyst for those transformative technologies is basic research, which often yields applications unforeseen at the time of discovery. NSF is the premier agency supporting basic research in all fields of science and engineering. No one can predict where the next breakthrough will emerge, so we must bolster research across disciplines and their intersections.”

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The letter recommends that Congress provide at least $876 million for EPA S&T, of which $40 million is requested for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program.

“Sustained investment is needed at a time when EPA research resources have declined,” the letter reads. “S&T funding has decreased from $846 million in FY 2010 to $744.2 million in FY 2026, and STAR program funding has fallen from $138 million in FY 2012 to $28.6 million in recent years. Despite these reductions, EPA-supported research continues to deliver significant returns.”

Read the letter sent to the House. An identical letter was shared with the Senate.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

NSF is the primary federal funding source for fundamental biological research at our nation’s universities and colleges, allocating nearly 94% of its budget directly to research projects, facilities, and STEM education. In recent years, however, NSF funding has failed to keep pace with our nation’s competitiveness needs. While the landmark CHIPS and Science Act demonstrated a bipartisan commitment to advancing U.S. science and innovation, actual appropriations continue to lag significantly behind authorized levels. Continued failure to meet these targets results in billions of dollars in lost opportunities for American discovery.

An effort is now underway in the Senate to build support for the agency. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) is circulating a Dear Colleague Letter calling on Congress to provide at least $9.9 billion for NSF in FY 2027 to ensure the U.S. remains a global leader in science and engineering.

Please take a few moments to ask your Senators to sign the Markey Dear Colleague Letter. The deadline for Senators to be added to the letter is Noon ET on Monday, April 13, 2026. We have included a template letter for your convenience but you are encouraged to personalize the message.

Take Action.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The competition showcases, in a personal way, biological research in its many forms and settings. The images help the public and policymakers better understand the value of biological research and education. The competition is sponsored by the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in addition to the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).

Biology is often hidden away in labs or remote field sites, but photography brings these invisible moments to light. This contest serves as a bridge between the analytical and the aesthetic, inviting researchers to transform their data into a visual narrative. By showcasing the human side of the laboratory and the intricate details of the natural world, we don’t just share results — we invite the world to witness the wonder of discovery first hand. — Scott Glisson, AIBS Chief Executive Officer

Credit: Heather Frantz

ⓘ

The theme of the contest is “Faces of Biology.” Photographs entered into the competition must depict a person, such as a scientist, technician, or student, engaging in biological research. The depicted research may occur outside, in a lab, with a natural history collection, on a computer, in a classroom, or elsewhere.

The First Place Winner will have their winning photo featured on the cover of BioScience, and will receive $250 and a one year subscription to BioScience. The Second and Third Place Winners will have their winning photo printed inside the journal, and will receive a one year subscription to BioScience.

The winning photo from the 2025 contest, seen here, will feature on the cover of the April 2026 issue of BioScience.

Submissions must be received by 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 30, 2026.

In this issue:

• Public Policy Office 2025 Annual Report
• Plans to Restructure NCAR Move Forward Amid Scrutiny
• Lawmakers Press NIH Director on Grant Slowdown as Funding Resumes
• NSF Responds to ‘Returned Without Review’ Fellowship Concerns
• NIH Shifts Away from Targeted Funding
• FDA Vaccine Regulator to Step Down
• Senate Panel Advances NASA Authorization Bill
• DOE Launches AI-Focused Genesis Mission Initiative
• Joint Statement on Availability of Climate Science in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence
• AIBS Requests Increased Funding for ARPA-H in FY 2027
• AIBS Submits Joint Comments on Proposal to Launch Mirrors into Space
• AIBS Endorses Letters Supporting Boosts for Agricultural Research in FY 2027
• AIBS Endorses Support Letter for FY 2027 NIAID Funding

• Short Takes

  • NIH Seeking Input on Strategic Plan
  • Court Blocks Vaccine Policy Changes
  • NIH Updates Required Elements of Data Management and Sharing Plan
  • Senate Panel Advances NIST Director Nominee
  • AIBS Joins Coalition in Asking for $51.3 Billion for NIH in FY 2027
  • FASEB Shares Recommendations for Generative AI in Biology
  • Lawmakers Urge HHS to Fill Vacancies on NIH Advisory Councils
• From the Federal Register

“Since its creation less than four years ago, ARPA-H has launched dozens of programs, funded over 200 projects, and built a network of over 1,800 health innovation partners across the nation,” the letter reads. “Growing the agency’s budget by providing a $200 million increase over FY 2026 enacted levels will allow ARPA-H to continue its forward momentum on developing breakthrough technologies and approaches to meet the nation’s continuing health challenges.”

Read the letter.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The statement on “Public Availability of Scientific Information and Scientific Evidence on Climate Change” emphasizes that the removed chapter reflects the broad scientific conclusions reached through decades of rigorous research and comprehensive assessments conducted by thousands of independent scientists and scientific organizations.

The groups warn that removing this material could limit access by public officials—including those in the legal system—to the best available scientific understanding of climate change, while also potentially discouraging scientists from contributing expertise to public decision-making.

The statement reaffirms that climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate, driven primarily by human activity. The organizations call for the immediate reinstatement of the climate science chapter to ensure judicial decisions are informed by rigorous, consensus-based evidence.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.

The proposed service, which would illuminate a region of at least 5 kilometers in diameter from a single beam, represents an unprecedented intervention into the natural night sky that could have far-reaching and irreversible consequences for biological life.

The comments assert that “darkness at night is not a problem that needs to be solved,” noting instead that it is “how our natural world functions, and we and other living beings rely on access to darkness to maintain circadian rhythms.” Disruption of these rhythms can lead to severe health consequences in humans and animals, including altered metabolism, impaired hormone production, and cardiovascular issues. Furthermore, the introduction of high-intensity artificial light at landscape scales threatens to destabilize ecological systems. Migratory animals and those that navigate using darkness, such as many bird species, face significant risks of disorientation or entrapment.

The signatories argue that this proposal does not serve the public interest and insist that the FCC “deny the application, or at least require a thorough environmental impact assessment before any license is granted”

Read the comments.

Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.