Title: Georgetown Advocates for Research in Wake of Proposed Federal Guidelines on Research Grants

Georgetown University raised concerns about proposed regulations on federal grantmaking that would inhibit the university’s research activities and academic mission. 

The university submitted a formal comment to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding its proposed revisions to the federal government’s grant management policies and process, joining a widespread effort by the higher education community to raise collective concerns over the proposal’s potential impacts on federally funded research. 

In particular, Georgetown opposed OMB’s changes to its expert peer review, research outcomes and restrictions on international collaboration and partnerships. 

“While Georgetown supports OMB’s commitments to responsible stewardship, efficiency and accountability in grants management, we are deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed regulations on our researchers, research infrastructure, and our ability to advance our research mission,” wrote Georgetown President Eduardo M. Peñalver in the formal comment.

Georgetown, a designated R1 doctoral institution, is home to more than 1,000 researchers working on projects supported by federal funding. OMB’s proposed changes to its federal grants would adversely impact the university’s ability to carry out its Catholic, Jesuit mission of academic inquiry, research and discovery for the common good, the letter shared. 

Georgetown leaders were most concerned by proposed requirements that federal grants should be awarded to recipients who “produce immediately demonstrable results.”

“Basic research, by its nature, does not follow predictable timelines or produce immediate outcomes, and transformative scientific discoveries often require years of investigation before their practical applications become evident,” Peñalver wrote.

Over the past century, Georgetown researchers have made life-changing contributions to medicine: developing the world’s first artificial heart valve in 1952; inventing the full-body CT scanner in 1973; and laying the groundwork for Gardasil, one of the world’s first cancer prevention vaccines. 

Those breakthroughs would not have been possible if the research had been evaluated primarily on its ability to produce immediate, measurable results, Peñalver wrote.

Georgetown also opposed a proposed requirement to make the peer review process in evaluating grant applications solely “advisory.” The change to the peer review process raises questions about how it will be interpreted against statutory frameworks established by Congress, including the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation’s review processes, the letter shared.

“Independent, expert peer review serves as a critical safeguard throughout the research lifecycle, from the evaluation of grant proposals to the review of research findings and subsequent grant decisions,” Peñalver wrote. “This process ensures scientific merit is assessed by experts with the technical knowledge necessary to evaluate complex research questions, strengthens accountability for the use of taxpayer funds, and promotes the highest standards of scientific integrity.”

Finally, Georgetown opposed new restrictions on foreign collaborations. The rule would apply to any use of federal funds for programmatic activities, research, technical assistance or other costs in collaborating with these countries, the regulation stated.

Georgetown has a longstanding history of research partnerships around the globe, including addressing HIV/AIDS in Haiti through a program funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The program has helped expand medical care for an estimated 150,000 Haitians living with HIV/AIDS and has helped reduce AIDS-related deaths by 64%. 

“Restricting collaboration between leading U.S. research institutions and trusted international partners could delay the development and deployment of life-saving medical countermeasures, limit access to critical research data and field networks, and ultimately weaken the United States’ leadership in global public health,” Peñalver wrote. 

The comment marks the latest instance of the university engaging with the federal government on policies impacting higher education. Earlier this year, Georgetown also submitted a comment letter to the Department of Education regarding its rule on graduate student loan eligibility and reclassifying graduate and professional degree definitions.