Federal Register

Deadline: December 26, 2025

Overview and Purpose

  • OSTP is soliciting public input (from academia; private-sector organizations; industry groups; state, local, and tribal governments; and other stakeholders) on potential Federal policy changes. Federal Register+1

  • The aim: to accelerate the U.S. scientific enterprise, support groundbreaking discoveries, and ensure that scientific progress and technological innovation ultimately benefit all Americans. Federal Register+1

  • The feedback collected via this Request for Information (RFI) will inform how the Executive Branch structures and reforms federal science & technology (S&T) policy and funding — with an eye toward strengthening the national S&T ecosystem and maintaining U.S. leadership in science and technology. Federal Register+1

Key Themes: What OSTP Is Seeking Feedback On

In the RFI, OSTP lists a series of broad questions and request-areas — respondents may address any or all — including (but not limited to) the following: Federal Register+1

  1. Public-Private Collaboration & Funding Mechanisms

    • What changes to federal funding mechanisms, procurement, or partnership authorities could enable stronger public-private collaboration and better engage the private sector in early-stage/basic research. Federal Register

    • Ways to support translation of scientific discoveries from academia and national labs into real-world applications and commercial products (i.e., tech transfer, translational programs, commercial incentives). Federal Register

  2. Regional Innovation Ecosystems & Small/Mid-Sized Business Engagement

    • How federal policy could support the formation and scaling of regional innovation ecosystems — tying together local businesses, universities, workforce, and federally-funded research centers. Federal Register

    • How small- and medium-sized businesses can be encouraged to adopt and drive emerging technologies, thus bridging innovation into market adoption. Federal Register

  3. Grantmaking Reform, Research Productivity & Risk-Taking

    • Use of empirical findings (from “metascience” or “progress studies”) to inform reform of grantmaking, peer review, and evaluation — to maximize scientific productivity and return on public investment. Federal Register

    • Policies that encourage “high-risk, high-reward” research (which could unlock transformative scientific breakthroughs), while preserving support for incremental and cumulative knowledge generation. Federal Register

  4. New Institutional Models & Emerging Science/Technology Trends

    • How to support novel institutional models (e.g., organizations outside traditional universities) that may be better suited for large-scale, interdisciplinary, long-term, or resource-intensive research projects. Federal Register

    • How to adapt to advances such as artificial intelligence (AI) that may transform how research is done — e.g., automated hypothesis generation, experiment design, literature synthesis, autonomous experimentation — by investing in infrastructure, organizational models, and workforce development to leverage these tools while maintaining rigor and integrity. Federal Register+1

  5. Regulatory & Legal Barriers to Innovation

    • Identification of existing federal statutes, regulations, or policies that may impose unnecessary barriers to scientific research or to deployment of research outcomes — with requests for specific descriptions of such barriers and proposals for how to mitigate them without undermining legitimate regulatory goals (e.g., safety, security, public interest). Federal Register

  6. Science Talent Development & Access/Equity

    • How federal programs can better identify, nurture, and develop scientific talent across the country — including leveraging digital tools and distributed research models to engage researchers beyond traditional academic centers. Federal Register

    • How to ensure that the benefits of federally funded research (technologies, economic opportunities, quality-of-life improvements) are broadly accessible to all Americans — addressing equity, access, and distribution of benefits. Federal Register

  7. Research Security and Responsible Innovation

    • How to strengthen research security (e.g., safeguarding sensitive or dual-use technologies), while avoiding excessive compliance burdens that could stifle innovation. Federal Register

Procedural & Legal Details

  • The RFI is not a request for funding applications, nor does it constitute a commitment by the government to adopt any proposals submitted. Federal Register+1

  • Submission is voluntary. Responses may be publicly posted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Federal Register

  • OSTP requests that respondents avoid submitting proprietary or confidential information (since the comments will become public records). Federal Register

  • The comment period closes at 11:59 p.m. (ET) on December 26, 2025. Federal Register+1

Strategic & Policy Context (Why OSTP Is Doing This)

  • The notice frames the U.S. scientific enterprise as a “complex machine” composed of researchers, institutions, publishers, funders, private-sector actors, and the public — all of which must evolve together to meet emerging scientific, technological, economic, and national-security challenges. Federal Register+1

  • OSTP notes that new institutional models, rapid advances (particularly in AI, interdisciplinary fields like quantum science and biology), and intensifying global competition demand a rethinking of how the Federal government supports, incentivizes, and regulates scientific research — beyond traditional models centered on grants to universities and national labs. Federal Register+2GovInfo+2

  • The RFI thus reflects a strategic pivot toward modernizing the S&T ecosystem: strengthening public-private partnerships, reducing friction in translation of science to market, embracing new institutional and technological models, and aligning research funding with broader national imperatives (competitiveness, security, equity). Federal Register+2The Acta Group+2

Implications — What This Could Mean (from a Legal/Policy-Maker Perspective)

If OSTP follows through on reforms suggested via this RFI, potential implications may include:

  • Revised Federal funding frameworks — e.g., more flexible grant mechanisms, increased public-private co-funding, streamlined procurement or partnership authorities, updated intellectual-property/tech-transfer policies.

  • New institutional players and models — growth of nontraditional research organizations (e.g., privately funded research institutes, consortia, collaborative R&D centers), increased role for small and medium businesses, and regional innovation hubs.

  • Regulatory reform for innovation — review and possible revision of federal statutes or regulations that currently constrain research or commercialization (regulatory “red tape”), with an eye toward balancing innovation with safety/security.

  • Integration of AI and emerging technologies into research policy — development of infrastructure and governance frameworks for AI-augmented science, including data sharing, workforce training, research-integrity safeguards, and possibly new oversight or policy criteria.

  • Broader geographic and demographic inclusion in science — policies to support researchers outside elite academic centers, distributed research networks, and mechanisms to ensure equitable access to benefits of research.

  • Increased strategic/mission-oriented research — possibly more high-risk, high-reward efforts in areas tied to national priorities (e.g., clean energy, biotech, advanced materials, national security), rather than purely incremental or academic-only research.

Relevance for Stakeholders — What Organizations (Like Yours) Should Consider

Given our involvement in credentialing, hazardous materials, safety, regulation, training, and professional development (Institute of Hazardous Materials Management — IHMM), this RFI may represent a meaningful opportunity to:

  • Provide input on how regulatory reform could reduce unnecessary barriers to research, development, commercialization of new chemical or safety-related technologies;

  • Advocate for policies that accelerate translation of scientific research (e.g., related to hazardous materials management, environmental safety, industrial innovations) into practical tools, standards, or credentialing/training pathways;

  • Influence how federal grantmaking, research incentives, and public-private collaborations are structured — potentially aligning with IHMM’s interests in safety, regulatory compliance, training, and standards development;

  • Monitor how new institutional models / AI-accelerated science may generate emerging risks or regulatory needs, which could shape future credentialing, oversight, or safety standards.