As part of our ongoing commitment to strengthening our research enterprise, we would like to re-introduce the University鈥檚 central research offices 鈥� the offices and teams that work together to support research and scholarship across the University.

Why this re-introduction?

Over the past year, we鈥檝e made significant changes and improvements, intended to better support all researchers and scholars at the University.听 These include: the launching of our new Office of Research Integrity, Stewardship, & Ethics (ORISE); the recruitment of new leaders of our Office of Human Subject Protection and of Animal Resource; new partnerships with University IT that are intended to enhance research computing (and research security); and the very recent appointment of an inaugural Associate Vice President and Vice Provost for Artificial Intelligence (AI).

A shared mission

Together, the central research offices provide University-wide leadership, expertise, and services that support our research and scholarly missions.听 While each office has distinct responsibilities, they operate as an integrated system, working collaboratively to efficiently support faculty, staff, and students across the institution.

Leadership

Steve Dewhurst serves as Vice President for Research. He oversees our central research offices, as well as our research strategy and funding priorities, and serves as the 鈥淚nstitutional Official鈥� for key compliance functions.

Central research offices

These offices and cross-functional teams work closely with one another 鈥� and with partners such as the , the University Libraries, the , Foundation Relations, Office of Counsel, , , and 鈥� to provide coordinated guidance, reduce administrative friction, and support responsible, high-impact research and scholarship across the University.

Our offices comprise:

• Office of the Vice President for Research 鈥� Led by Libby Reitz. Coordination, communication, and collaboration with all other offices. Internal institution-wide funding opportunities and limited submissions, major initiatives and projects.
• 鈥� Led by Pradeep Dumpala.听 Animal care and veterinary services.
• Office for Human Subject Protection (OHSP) 鈥� Led by Sarah Mumford. IRB/RSRB oversight, education and compliance for human research, and leadership of the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP).
• Office of Research Integrity, Stewardship, & Ethics (ORISE) 鈥� Led by Sonya Hadrigan. University research misconduct processes and proceedings, research COI/Commitment administration, research data governance support, responsible and ethical conduct of research (ReCR) training, and related research integrity compliance support and consultation.
• Office of Research & Project Administration (ORPA) 鈥� Led by Anthony Beckman. Proposal submission, contract negotiation, award management, pre- and post-award administration, material and data sharing, export controls, and billing compliance.
• Research Security 鈥� Led by Joe Doyle.听 Compliance with federal research security laws and regulations; input on emerging security issues.
• UR Ventures 鈥� Led by Harl Tolbert. 听Intellectual property (including patents, copyrights and trademarks), technology licensing and commercialization, startups, and industry partnerships.
• 鈥� Led by . Oversight and compliance for research involving animals.

Governance, resources & engagement

The central research offices also support University-wide governance and oversight bodies (including the Research Executive Committee, Committee on Science and Security, Conflict of Interest Committees, and Research Compute Operations Committee) and provide shared resources for researcher onboarding, funding opportunities, compliance, innovation, and research data and computing.

We encourage faculty, staff, and learners to explore these resources and to engage early with the appropriate offices when planning new research 鈥� particularly for proposals, data-intensive projects, or international activities that may involve research security risks. This re-introduction is intended to make it easier to understand who does what, how the offices work together, and where to turn for support.

Learn more or contact us: /university-research/

Warm regards,
Office of the Vice President for Research

The post Re-Introducing 天美传媒鈥檚 Central Research Offices appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

To comply with evolving federal requirements, effective December 31, 2026, the University will prohibit the purchase of goods and services from entities identified on the 鈥�鈥� maintained by the Department of Defense. The 1260(H) List identifies 鈥淐hinese military companies鈥� operating directly or indirectly in the United States and is updated annually.

The 1260H List is not restricted to companies that are solely in the 鈥渕ilitary鈥� or 鈥渄efense鈥� sectors. The most recent 1260H List includes, for example, (1) a limited number of biotechnology companies, including Novogene, BGI Group (and its subsidiary, Innomics), MGI, and WuXi AppTec, (2) drone and robotics companies Autel Technology, Unitree, and Robosense, (3) telecommunications companies, such as Huawei, and (4) technology companies such as Alibaba and Baidu.

This prohibition will be implemented as follows:

• Existing Purchase Orders (POs) with an end date of December 31, 2026 or earlier may conclude and will not be renewed.
• Existing POs with an end date of later than December 31, 2026 must transition to an alternative supplier and be canceled no later than December 31, 2026.
• New POs are prohibited.

Impacted researchers and departments should begin the process of transitioning to alternative suppliers. Where appropriate, we strongly encourage researchers to consider the use of internal resources, such as the .

If you have additional questions, please contact University Procurement or the University鈥檚 Research Security Officer (Joe Doyle; researchsecurity@rochester.edu).

Thank you.

Joe Doyle
Research Security Director

The post New Procurement Restrictions on Chinese Military Companies appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

We are writing to let you know of a forthcoming National Science Foundation (NSF) to help ensure that you can comply with its requirement once effective. This policy may impact your collaborations with certain foreign institutions.

Once effective, the policy will:

• Prohibit senior / key personnel from collaborating with the restricted entities (or their employees) on NSF-funded projects. The restricted entity lists can be found on of the NSF announcement.
• Prohibit senior / key personnel from holding an appointment or position with the restricted entities for the duration of the NSF award.
• Prohibit senior / key personnel from receiving research support from the restricted entities for the duration of the NSF award.
• Prohibit NSF appropriated funds from being used for grants, contracts, other transactions or other assistance to an organization if the purpose is to conduct research in collaboration with the restricted entities.
• Require senior / key personnel and the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) to certify to compliance with these prohibitions at the time of proposal submission.

Notably, the restricted entity lists include a significant number of universities and research institutions located in China.

Though this policy is not yet in effect, NSF intends to implement this policy as of October 1, 2026.听

What This Means for You:

NSF-funded researchers should take the following actions:

• Review anticipated collaborations to ensure they will comply with these new requirements once they become effective.
• Consider that these prohibitions will impact collaborations with former University researchers (such as students and postdoctoral fellows) who join a restricted entity after departing the University. Senior / key personnel will be prohibited from collaborating with the restricted entities and their employees on NSF-funded projects even if the project began when the collaborator was affiliated with the University.
• Assess whether they hold any appointments or positions with, or receive research support from, any of these restricted entities. Appointments and positions will be considered within the scope of the policy whether they are paid or unpaid, and whether they are full-time, part-time, or voluntary.

As communicated in prior guidance, researchers should:

• Contact the Export Control Officer (Nicole Porter;听export@rochester.edu) and the Research Security Officer (Joe Doyle;听researchsecurity@rochester.edu) for restricted party screening assistance on any foreign appointments, positions, or research support; and
• Contact the Export Control Officer (Nicole Porter;听export@rochester.edu) prior to initiating a research collaboration with a foreign institution, or to assess any existing collaborations.

If you have further questions about this new policy, please contact the University鈥檚 Research Security Officer (Joe Doyle;听researchsecurity@rochester.edu).

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Joe Doyle
Research Security Officer
Office of the Vice President for Research
Phone: (585) 273-2827
rochester.edu |

The post NSF Policy Restricting Collaborations with Certain Foreign Entities appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

Over the past several weeks, members of our research community have received information regarding opportunities to provide feedback on federal Requests for Information (RFIs) and proposed policy changes, including recent notices from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Management and Budget.

We encourage members of our community to share their perspectives with the Office of the Vice President for Research and the Office of Government and Community Relations so that those insights may help inform the University’s consideration of these matters and, where appropriate, the development of official institutional responses.

We also encourage those who wish to do so to submit comments directly to NIH, OMB, or other sponsoring agencies. Individual perspectives can play an important role in helping policymakers understand the practical implications of proposed changes for researchers, trainees, staff, institutions, and the broader research enterprise.

If you choose to submit comments directly, please do so in your individual capacity. Unless specifically authorized, comments should not be submitted on behalf of the 天美传媒 or presented as representing an official University position. While individuals may identify their professional expertise and University affiliation for purposes of identification, any opinions, recommendations, or statements expressed should be clearly understood as their own. Additional guidance regarding individual and institutional advocacy activities is available in the University’s Lobbying Activities Policy.

Thank you for your continued contributions to the research community.

Warm regards,
Steve

Stephen Dewhurst, PhD
Vice President for Research

P.S. – For those who choose to submit comments directly to NIH, OMB, or other federal agencies, the following suggestions may be helpful:

• Remember that comments submitted through federal rulemaking and RFI processes generally become part of the public record. Please do not include confidential, proprietary, or personal information.
• Submit comments as an individual unless you have been specifically authorized to represent an official University position. While you may identify your University affiliation and professional role, your comments should clearly reflect your personal views and expertise.
• Consider identifying the specific provision, question, or policy proposal to which you are responding and explain why it is relevant to your work.
• Describe how the proposed change could affect your research, scholarship, trainees, research team, collaborations, patients, community partners, or other activities. Concrete examples and specific impacts are often more helpful than general observations.
• Where possible, provide evidence, data, or examples that support your perspective.
• Conclude by clearly stating any recommendation you would like the agency to consider.

There are a number of provisions in the , however the following may be of particular interest to members of the research community, including:

• 200.202(e) and 搂200.220 鈥� Restrictions on foreign research collaborations and the application of a “domestic-first” framework for federally funded research activities.
• 200.205(b)-(d) 鈥� Review of discretionary awards by senior political appointees, including provisions that would make peer review advisory rather than determinative in funding decisions.
• 200.340(a)(2) and 搂200.340(e) 鈥� Expanded authority for agencies to terminate or temporarily suspend awards when deemed to be in the agency’s interest or the national interest.
• 200.461 鈥� Treatment of publication costs, including article processing charges and open-access publication fees, as generally unallowable expenses under federal awards absent prior agency approval.

The post Opportunities to Provide Feedback on Federal RFIs and Proposed Policy Changes appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently on Regulations for Federal Financial Assistance (Uniform Guidance). The goal of the revision, according to OMB, is to 鈥渋mprove transparency, accountability, and oversight for how Federal taxpayer dollars are used in the context of Federal grantmaking,鈥� and the Administration hopes to have a final Rule in place by October 1st, 2026. Among other things, the proposed rule implements several executive orders (EO) related to the federal grantmaking process and DEI, including the August 7, 2025, executive order on 鈥淚mproving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.鈥�

While the University is continuing to review and analyze the proposal in detail with its national associations, the proposal fundamentally alters how all federal grants are awarded, administered and regulated 鈥� in ways that are of considerable concern.

Below is a high-level overview of some of the provisions in the rule to help the research community understand the proposal, its potential implications, and opportunities to provide feedback during the public comment period to help inform comments from 天美传媒 and our national associations.

Broad Overview of Major Proposed Changes:

• 鈥淧re-issuance鈥� review by a senior political appointee of every discretionary grant before it is made; the peer review process will become 鈥減urely advisory鈥�.
• Preference to give awards to institutions with lower IDC rates;
• 鈥淭ermination for convenience鈥�.听 The OMB is proposing that federal agencies include language permitting immediate termination of grants if an award no longer advances “agency priorities, or the national interest.听 The OMB also proposes to remove the ability to appeal such terminations.
• Potential restriction on health disparities research.
• Domestic first framework – may impact all foreign collaborations, and particularly collaborations with 鈥渇oreign adversaries鈥� or related entities.
• New restrictions on publication and related costs

More Detailed Outline of Key Proposed Changes:

Grant Review

In accordance with the August EO, the proposed rule would require senior political appointees, rather than career scientists or program officers, to conduct a 鈥減re-issuance review鈥� of every discretionary grant before it is awarded. It also states that the peer-review process will be purely advisory, and award selection will be at the agency鈥檚 discretion. Furthermore, it forbids appointees from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations.

Also as previewed by Executive Order 14332, the proposed pre-issuance review principles state that, 鈥渁ll else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates鈥�; and agencies are encouraged to award a 鈥渂road range of recipients鈥� and to prioritize an institution鈥檚 鈥渃ommitment to rigorous, reproducible scholarship over its historical reputation or perceived prestige.鈥�

鈥淭ermination for Convenience鈥�: Codification of grant termination capability, multi-year awards, use of Grants.gov, and streamlined Notices of Funding Opportunity

The proposed rule codifies a number of policies already being implemented across federal agencies by the Administration, making it easier for Agencies to terminate awards, as well as requiring or strongly encouraging research Agencies to use multi-year funding and simplified Notices of Funding Opportunity.听听 In addition , the proposed rule removes the ability of institutions to appeal such Terminations for Convenience (which was the basis for prior, successful, appeals by the University).

Publication and Open Access Costs

The proposal would significantly restrict the ability to charge publication costs鈥攊ncluding many open access publishing fees and article processing charges (APCs)鈥攖o federal awards. In many cases, these costs would require advance agency approval or may no longer be allowable.

Expanded Risk Assessments

The proposal expands an Agency鈥檚 ability to consider a number of factors when evaluating applicant risk, including a history of 鈥渜uestionable practices鈥� based on publicly available information, compliance with foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements, and 鈥渁ffiliations with organizations engaged in activities that violate Federal law, undermine public safety or national security, or advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government.鈥�

International Collaborations

The proposal establishes a 鈥渄omestic-first framework.鈥� Awards must be made to U.S. entities, a State, or Tribal government, and awards may not be made to foreign entities unless expressly authorized by statute or where a compelling interest exists. When designing programs, and evaluating applications, 鈥渋nternational elements鈥� may be included only if the Federal agency determines that such elements are justified, consistent with program objectives, and in the national interest of the United States.

The proposal would also prohibit bilateral or multilateral collaborations, agreements, programs, or activities with 鈥渃overed foreign countries鈥� or 鈥渃overed foreign entities,鈥� unless expressly authorized by Federal statute or approved by the Federal agency in accordance with the proposed exception authority and applicable law.

Conference Travel and Professional Activities

The proposal would increase approval and documentation requirements for certain conference, meeting, membership, and professional activity expenses. Researchers may need additional agency approvals before charging these costs to federal awards.

Research Resources and Subscriptions

As stated in听 200.454: “(b) Costs of the recipient’s or subrecipient’s subscriptions to business, professional, academic, and technical periodicals are unallowable.” Memberships, subscriptions, databases, and similar resources would need to be more clearly tied to a specific award and research objective. Costs that support broad institutional use rather than a particular project may become more difficult to charge to federal awards.

Research Data Management and International Considerations

The proposal places greater emphasis on project-specific data management and domestic data storage. Certain provisions could also affect how federally funded projects engage with international partners, data systems, and research infrastructure.

Increased Oversight and Compliance Requirements

The proposal would expand documentation, reporting, and approval requirements across a range of grant activities and provide federal agencies with broader authority to oversee and, in some circumstances, terminate awards.

Codification of DEI restrictions

There are a number of provisions throughout the proposed Rule that collectively codify the Administration鈥檚 previous Executive Orders and policies aimed at prohibiting federal funding of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.听 Moreover, 200.218 may prohibit funds to be awarded for health disparities research.

What This Could Mean for Researchers and Research Support Units:

If finalized substantially as proposed, these changes could represent one of the most significant shifts in federal grant administration. Potential impacts include:

• Determination of which grants are funded by senior political appointees, and use of peer review on a purely advisory basis.

• Immediate termination of grants if an award no longer advances “agency priorities, or the national interest.
• Potential restriction on health disparities research

• Domestic first framework – may impact all foreign collaborations, and particularly collaborations with 鈥渇oreign adversaries鈥� or related entities
• Additional agency approvals for activities that are currently routine components of federally funded research.
• Increased administrative and documentation requirements for publication, travel, memberships, subscriptions, and other project expenses.
• Reduced flexibility in using grant funds to support scholarly communication, including some open access publishing costs.
• New considerations for research data management, storage, and collaboration practices.

What You Can Do Now:

We understand that many of you are disappointed, confused, or angry about these proposed changes. Please know that we are deeply concerned about their potential negative impact on your research and on the University. Because this is a proposed rule, implementation details and final requirements remain uncertain. However, if implemented as proposed, these changes would have a sweeping impact and introduce concerning changes into the process of federal funding of science in the United States.

At this stage, researchers and research support staff may wish to:

• Share questions, concerns, and examples of potential impacts with the Office of the Vice President for Research.听 The University is developing an institutional response (see below) in coordination with peer institutions and national research organizations and will use feedback from researchers to help inform our formal institutional response.
• Review how publication, data management, conference participation, and other project-related costs are currently incorporated into proposals and award budgets
• Consider how the proposed changes could affect research activities, collaborations, and administrative processes within your area

Next Steps 鈥� Institutional Response:

The University, along with our national associations (Association of American Universities, Association of American Medical Colleges, etc.), is reviewing the proposed rule and will share any additional guidance. The proposed rule is currently open for public comment and may be revised before becoming final. The proposed rule has a 45-day comment period, with comments due by July 13, 2026. With our national associations, we are seeking an extension of that deadline giving the sweeping nature of these proposed changes.

As noted above, we are seeking input from the 天美传媒 research community as we develop our response.

While a number of scientific societies and advocacy groups are encouraging individual comments, it is very important that we get the feedback needed to have the strongest institutional and national response to this proposed rule.听 Hence this request for your help and input.

Thank you in advance for your help and support in this effort.

Regards,

Steve Dewhurst, PhD
Vice President for Research and Chief Research Officer

Nicole S. Sampson
Provost and Chief Academic Officer

Josh Farrelman
Vice President for Government Relations

The post Proposed Federal Grant Regulation Changes: Important Information for the Research Community appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

We want to encourage you to continue submitting grant proposals and pursuing funding opportunities, even as you may be seeing fewer formal program announcements from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

A reduction in published solicitations does not听mean a reduction in funding opportunities. In many cases, agencies are continuing to support meritorious research through existing mechanisms and more flexible pathways.

In particular:

1. Do not wait for a specific program announcement听to move forward with a strong idea.
2. Reach out to your program officer听to discuss your concept, fit, and timing鈥攖hese conversations are often critical in the current funding environment.
3. Continue submitting proposals听through standard mechanisms, including unsolicited or investigator-initiated opportunities.

Additionally, NIH administrative supplements remain a viable and often underutilized option. The active funding opportunity announcement () allows investigators with existing NIH awards to request support for expanding or adapting ongoing projects. These requests can typically be submitted on a rolling basis, making them a flexible way to advance new ideas without waiting for a targeted call.

We also recommend investigators regularly review agency priority areas, as these are increasingly shaping funding decisions (see: , , and ). Aligning proposals with these priorities can strengthen competitiveness in the current environment.

We encourage you to stay proactive鈥攁dvance strong ideas, engage program staff early, and take advantage of available mechanisms to sustain research momentum during this period. 听Finally, please never lose sight of the fact that our collective work in research and scholarship is of fundamental importance and value, and a powerful force for good in the world. 听In Madam Curie鈥檚 words –听鈥�We must have perseverance and above all confidence in ourselves. We must believe that we are gifted for something and that this thing must be attained.”

Warm regards,
Steve

Steve Dewhurst, PhD
Vice President for Research

The post Reminder: Continue Submitting Proposals and Exploring Supplement Opportunities appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

The NIH has released a 听for preparing Data Management and Sharing Plans.

The underlying NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy has not changed. Rather, NIH has revised the DMS Plan format to simplify the required elements, reduce narrative burden, and clarify common areas of confusion that have emerged since the policy went into effect in 2023.

The new 2026 Pilot DMS Plan format is required for NIH applications with due dates on or after May 25, 2026. For due dates before May 25, 2026, NIH will accept either the 2023 format or the new 2026 Pilot format. NIH recommends that applicants use the new simplified format if they are beginning to prepare a DMS Plan now.

The 天美传媒 Libraries鈥� Data Services team has updated its 听and guidance to reflect the new NIH format. UR Libraries Data Services will host a webinar discussing the new format on May 14th.听 You can. Please contact the 听team if you have any questions about the template or you would like help preparing your data and management sharing plan.

Investigators and research teams preparing NIH applications should review NIH鈥檚 2026 Pilot DMS Plan format and coordinate with their ORPA Research Administrator and the Libraries鈥� Data Services team as needed.

ORISE is partnering with the Libraries and ORPA to support clear, coordinated guidance on research data stewardship, including expectations related to the responsible management, documentation, preservation, and sharing of research data. Researchers are encouraged to participate in future RECR sessions focused on good data practices and data stewardship.

Sincerely,

The Office of Research Integrity, Stewardship & Ethics (ORISE)

The Office of Research and Project Administration (ORPA)

The 天美传媒 Libraries

The post NIH Releases 2026 Pilot Data Management and Sharing Plan Format appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.

As you know, the federal government requires that researchers applying for federal research funding must have taken Research Security Training within 12 months of a proposal submission.听Federal agencies (such as DOE, NSF, and NIH) have implemented training requirements at different times which has resulted in numerous compliance periods. To reduce confusion and ensure simpler compliance moving forward, effective January 2027, the University is requiring that faculty engaged or expected to be engaged in federally funded research complete Research Security Training on an annual basis. Here is what this means for you:

For the remainder of 2026:

• It is strongly recommended that all faculty currently engaged or planning to be engaged in federally funded research who have not already completed Research Security Training complete this training now.
• Faculty who have previously completed Research Security Training must ensure that they have completed it within 12 months of the date of their application or Other Support (for NIH) submission. For example, if an individual first completed Research Security Training on April 1, 2025, and plans to submit a grant application on June 1, 2026 (more than 12 months after completion), they must complete Research Security Training prior to the submission.
• ORPA will not submit a proposal unless each PI, Co-PI, or other senior/key persons have completed Research Security Training within 12 months of the submission date. The training is currently accessible in听听by searching for 鈥淩esearch Security鈥� in the search bar.

For 2027 and Moving Forward:

• In January 2027, and each January thereafter, all faculty engaged or expected to be engaged in federally funded research will be required to complete Research Security Training through an assignment in MyPath. Researchers will be notified of the assignment in December and will have one month to complete the training.
• Faculty engaged or expected to be engaged in federally funded research should be aware that they will be required to complete Research Security Training in January 2027 even if they have recently completed it (such as in late 2026). This is necessary to ensure consistency moving forward. Please keep this in mind as you decide when to complete Research Security Training this year.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.

Thank you.

Joe Doyle
Research Security Officer

The post Research Security Training Update appeared first on Office of the Vice President for Research.