AACR Warns OMB Proposal Threatens NIH's Lifesaving Cancer Research Mission
Key Insights
The AACR (search) strongly opposes an OMB (search) proposed rule that would subject federal research funding decisions to political review, undermining the scientific peer review process.
The proposal could allow politically appointed officials to terminate active multi-year grants and clinical trials based on shifting political priorities rather than scientific merit.
New restrictions on international collaborations, conference attendance, and publication costs would slow the dissemination of discoveries and impede global cancer (search) research partnerships.
The American Association for Cancer (search) Research (AACR (search)) has issued an urgent call to action opposing a White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB (search)) proposal that the organization warns could "irreparably damage" the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its mission to accelerate progress for patients with cancer and other diseases.
Issued May 29, the proposed rule titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" would make sweeping changes to how federal research grants are reviewed, awarded, managed, and terminated. The AACR (search), representing more than 66,000 members, describes the proposal as "reckless" and warns it does not meet the high U.S. standards required for a meritorious, impactful research grant program.
"Many of the changes that OMB (search) has proposed, if finalized, will be extremely disruptive to the lifesaving research that the federal government funds and oversees, mainly through NIH," the AACR (search) stated.
Political Review Would Override Scientific Merit
Among the most concerning provisions, the OMB (search) proposal would markedly expand the power of political appointees to override expert assessment of scientific merit by subjecting every federal research funding decision to political review. Under the proposed rule, senior appointees or their designees would review discretionary awards before they are issued to determine whether they align with "applicable law, agency priorities, administration policies, and the national interest."
The AACR (search) emphasized that these politically appointed officials are unlikely to have subject-matter expertise and would be instructed to determine whether grant proposals align with the Administration's political priorities, regardless of their scientific merit. The proposal would carry forward an August 2025 executive order's direction that peer review recommendations remain advisory and should not be routinely deferred to or treated as binding.
"The merit review process, in which scientific experts in a particular field are brought together to review scientific proposals and assign scores based on the quality of the application and its potential to advance new knowledge, has underpinned many discoveries that have led to major improvements in public health," the AACR (search) noted.
Active Grants Could Be Terminated on Political Grounds
The proposal would expand agency authority to suspend or terminate awards based on changing political priorities or program goals that no longer align with the Administration's concept of "Gold Standard Science." The AACR (search) warns this term is used "to terminate research not because it is unsound, but because it does not fit a preferred political or methodological agenda."
Critically, these suspensions and terminations could occur regardless of whether the recipient is performing the project based on the previously approved scope of work. An active grant, including a multi-year award already underway, could be terminated because of a political or ideological agenda.
The AACR (search) cautioned that this provision may have an adverse effect on patient accrual to cancer (search) clinical trials, as patients with cancer may be less likely to enroll if ongoing support for these trials is uncertain. "Cancer research often requires years of sustained investment, and permitting political appointees to discontinue support for a grant or clinical trial after it has already been awarded or begun threatens scientific progress, wastes taxpayer resources, and destabilizes research programs and studies on which patients are relying for their survival."
Barriers to International Collaboration and Scientific Dissemination
The proposed rule would create additional barriers to scientific collaboration by imposing undue restrictions on international partnerships. The AACR (search) highlighted that modern cancer (search) science relies on global networks of researchers, clinical trial participants, data resources, and specialized expertise. Pediatric cancer research, in particular, depends on international collaboration because childhood cancers are rare, requiring pooled global patient data and resources to accelerate clinical trials and drive breakthroughs in drug-resistant subtypes.
Additionally, the proposal would restrict funding support for scientific publications, journal subscriptions, and attendance at scientific conferences. Under the proposed rule, certain publication costs including page charges, article processing charges, and open access fees for peer-reviewed publications would be unallowable unless required by federal statute or approved in advance by the agency on a case-by-case basis. The AACR (search) stated these provisions would "hinder the ability of researchers to disseminate discoveries, learn about emerging advances, and establish highly productive collaborations."
Cancer (search) Disparities Research Under Threat
The OMB (search) proposal would prohibit all federal funding related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with vague language that the AACR (search) warns could be interpreted in ways that restrict research on cancer (search) disparities, access to care, and differences in outcomes among all patient populations.
"Cancer (search) touches every community, yet, sadly, its burden is not shared equally," the AACR (search) stated. "A person's race, ethnicity, income, ZIP code, insurance status, access to screening, ability to enroll in a clinical trial, and proximity to overall high-quality cancer care shape whether cancer is found early, treated effectively, and ultimately cured."
Decades of Progress at Stake
For decades, the framework supporting America's scientific research enterprise through agencies such as NIH and the National Cancer (search) Institute (NCI) has fueled transformative discoveries in cancer prevention, detection, treatment, and survivorship. This established system has reduced the U.S. cancer death rate by 35% since 1991, resulting in more than 4.8 million U.S. lives saved.
"This progress has been made possible because of research funding decisions guided by the rigorous review of grant applications by scientific experts and their assessment of these grants to improve public health—NOT guided by political and ideological considerations," the AACR (search) emphasized.
The AACR (search) is calling on its members to submit comments opposing the proposal before the July 13, 2026 deadline and urging all stakeholders to contact their congressional representatives. "At this time of crisis, we in the research community have a major responsibility to protect and preserve the U.S. medical research enterprise," the organization stated.