By SHANNON O. WELLS
A University committee is forming to address measures based on research security requirements shared in a July 9 memorandum from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy based on the CHIPS and Science Act and National Security Presidential Memorandum 33.
The memorandum requires covered institutions to certify their compliance with requirements including a cybersecurity program that adheres to National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines, a foreign-travel security program, and training programs based on research security and export controls for key personnel involved in federal research grants.
The Office of Science and Technology guidance allows funding agencies discretion in crafting their specific policies, which are expected to be published by the end of this year and implemented in 2025. Recipients of federal research grants, however, will have an 18-month period to ensure full compliance.
Bill Yates, vice chancellor for Pitt research protections and professor in the School of Medicine’s Department of Otolaryngology, outlined the memorandum’s requirements and implications at the Senate Research committee’s inaugural meeting of the 2024-25 semester on Sept. 20.
Related to the CHIPS and Science Act, “there is federal law that’s mandating this, as well as (the presidential memorandum),” Yates explained. “It’s related to concerns of inappropriate foreign influence in U.S. research.
“This was actually not a memo to research institutions, but to the heads of federal research agencies. They have until the end of this calendar year to come up with those rules, (which) have to be implemented within six months,” he added.
Yates said he presumes rules will appear in the Federal Register for comment and then be finalized by mid 2025. “Once they’re implemented, the White House document says we have 18 months to implement the rules.”
Responding to the directive, a Pitt committee has been convened to devise measures to meet forthcoming requirements. Because federal agencies haven’t shared their specific research security policies, however, the University can’t provide definitive guidance at this stage.
“Proactive steps are being taken to ensure compliance once the policies are fully articulated,” Yates noted.
Responding to a committee member’s question about the types of research affected by the pending requirements, Yates said he thinks it will apply to anyone listed as key personnel on federal grants.
“There may be additional requirements by certain funding agencies, but we know that everybody’s going to have to do something here,” he said, emphasizing the likelihood of research security training. “We know that because we’ve talked about the CHIPS and Science Act and … this presidential memorandum. They require it.”
Public Health Service Policy revisions
In a related development, Yates shared with the committee that on Sept. 17, the Department of Health and Human Services introduced revisions to the Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct.
Spanning more than 100 pages and published in the Federal Register, the document outlines feedback received on proposed changes and provides detailed instructions on the elements institutions must incorporate into their research integrity policies.
Pitt’s research integrity group in the Office of Research Protections is reviewing the document to recommend appropriate amendments to the Research Integrity Policy, RI-07. Changes must be in place by Jan 1, 2026, to ensure compliance with the revised HHS standards.
“I know some have been concerned about this. They published something in the Federal Register earlier this year about basically the changes that they were proposing in the policy that generated a lot of feedback, but it’s pretty meaningless,” Yates said, noting that Pitt Research received 65 comments on the proposal.
Some of what Yates called the “more onerous” proposals, such as full transparency on research integrity investigations, did not come to pass.
“They’re recognizing that these things need to be confidential, and unless there’s a finding of research misconduct validated by the federal government, it is a confidential matter,” he said. “It’s not shared with anybodys … That was the biggest concern (and) that’s been settled.”
Rob Rutenbar, senior vice chancellor for research, said he thinks there will be “minor changes. We may have to revise our Research Integrity Policy a bit just to (ensure) we are complying with these rules, because that policy is fairly prescriptive.
“There may be some changes that we need to make in the policy, but there were no huge changes,” he added. “At least the government had the wisdom not to implement some issues that people were concerned about.”
The topic of research security is “one that we’re going to have to come back to during this year, and in the coming year,” Rutenbar noted, “as we learn more about what the funding agencies are requiring us to do.”
Of the two research security-related developments the Research committee discussed on Sept. 20, Yates told University Times that “both initiatives underscore the evolving landscape of research security and integrity.
“And institutions receiving federal research funding will need to remain vigilant in aligning their internal policies with evolving federal requirements.”
Shannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.