Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Research Regulations
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Technology held a hearing to raise concerns about the patchwork of federal laws, regulations, and reporting requirements that have led to greater time and resources being spent on complying with federal requirements, and to review recent recommendations made by the National Academies and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for streamlining federal regulations on academic scientific research to optimize the nation’s investment in research, while ensuring accountability and scientific integrity.
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) said, “Efforts to streamline and reduce the burden of administrative requirements placed on academic researchers – while maintaining a strong system of accountability and scientific integrity – are not new. The Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) began 30 years ago, and the Council on Governmental Relations, which represents and supports universities in complying with federal regulations, dates back to the post-WWII era.”
“However, as research budgets have flattened or declined and our best and brightest young researchers increasingly look elsewhere, the topic of reducing the administrative burden on federal research has taken on new urgency. The FDP reported that academic researchers spend 42 percent of their time on activities other than academic research, including administrative burden. That number has since been challenged, but I think we all agree with the basic premise of this hearing and all of the related reports – too much valuable time of our researchers is wasted on excessive compliance with excessive regulations…I understand this from my own experiences as a college professor, through discussions with former colleagues, and from talking to researchers and research university administrators as I have served as chair and then the ranking member of this subcommittee for the past 8 years.”
Ranking Member Lipinski discussed his bill that addresses research regulatory burdens. He said, “In response to these reports, and working closely with the stakeholder community, I developed bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5583, to implement some of the key recommendations to Congress.
“H.R. 5583, the University Regulation Streamlining and Harmonization Act, would address issues around researcher biosketches, the micro-purchase threshold, and other regulations on academic research. However, the most important part of the legislation is the creation of a research policy board at OMB. The board would allow members of the research community to meet with agency and OMB officials to suggest ways to streamline rules across agencies. This board would not be able to overrule or delay any actions taken by OMB, but rather would serve to give the research community a seat at the table to help advise against overly onerous research regulations both now and in the future.
“This bill has received strong support from the research community, including endorsements from the Association of American Universities and the Council on Governmental Relations among others. While the clock is ticking on this Congress, I hope we will be able to implement at least some of these proposals – if not this entire bill – before the end of the year. Either way, I hope that OMB, OSTP, and federal research agencies will continue to work on the issues identified in these reports and in my legislation.”
Members and witnesses discussed the unnecessary burden created by the patchwork of federal requirements, the impact it has on the research enterprise, and the value of establishing a standing federal-university Research Policy Board.
Mr. Luther said, “The Research Policy Board is the enabler for everything else…The Research Policy Board, the way it has been suggested, is the one group that has all of the appropriate stakeholders at the table to develop [requirements] and talk through the implementation. What we’re seeing is that transparency of the development process, as well as input into the implementation process is so critical to the efficiency of it, but also to the accountability. The accountability goes both ways, to good policy, as well as to how institutions can do it in an effective way to meet the goals. The creation of a board like this that has the objectives of efficient, quality policy development is so critical.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article