Reading Room Production — page 108

ients y (10/17), please provide any M [AID DEA DART ID DIR-OCGR < ID DCR-OCGR ay i] NIAID) (NIH/NIAID) [E] [E] J 4/NIAID) [E] VIH/NIAID) [I] iy >; (NIH/NIAID) [E] IIH/NIAID) [--] NIAID) [E] > edon the 3 time. Good Afternoon, NIAID has been asked to review the attached compiled HHS comments on S.4667 (Risky Research Review Act), as amended. OSP, OER, and ORS also are reviewing. As you may recall, NIAID previously provided NIH OD with comments on the revised bill text, which are attached for your reference, as well as high-level bullets (see email chain below). ACTION: By 10a Thursday (10/17), please provide any new edits/comments in the attached "HHS points" document. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, Chase From: Crawford, Chase (NIH/NIAID) [E] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 2:31 PM To: NIAID BUGS @niaid.nih.gov>; NIAID DEA DART @mail.nih.gov>; NIAID DIR-OCGR <NIAIDDIR- @mail.nih.gov>; NIAID DCR-OCGR @mail.nih.gov>; Nealy, Michael (NIH/NIAID) [E] @nih.gov>; Auchincloss, Hugh (NIH/NIAID) [E] @niaid.nih.gov>; Harper, Jill (NIH/NIAID) [E] @niaid.nih.gov>; Parker, Marie (NIH/NIAID) [E] @niaid.nih.gov>; Billet, Courtney (NIH/NIAID) [E] @niaid.nih.gov> Cc: NIAID OCGR Leg @mail.nih.gov>; Erbelding, Emily (NIH/NIAID) [E] @nih.gov>; Holland, Steven (NIH/NIAID) [E] @niaid.nih.gov>; Hanson, Christopher (NIH/NIAID) [E] @niaid.nih.gov>; Poe, Kelly (NIH/NIAID) [E] @nih.gov>; Gilles, Sharon (NIH/NIAID) [E] @nih.gov>; DDSM Correspondences @mail.nih.gov> Subject: FYI - Update on TA for revised bill text for Risky Research Review Act FYI - Bldg. 1 has asked NIAID to provide a few top line bullets outlining the types of comments that were submitted on the redline version of the bill. NIAID plans to share the below bullets and indicate that NIAID shares many of the concerns raised by OER, ORS, and OSP (their top line bullets are copied further below). We will request a copy of the consolidated NIH TA and share it with you if/when we receive. Please let us know if you have any questions at this time. Thanks, Chase NIAID NIAID notes that, to avoid confusion, the definitions in the bill pertaining to scientific and/or current policies should be consistent with definitions in science and those policies, including the USG Policy for Oversight of DURC and PEPP (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/USG-Policy-for-Oversight-of-DURC-andPEPP.pdf). Further, as written, some definitions are overly broad and could slow research in critical areas, including research on antimicrobial resistance and the H5 influenza outbreak in dairy cattle. NIAID also notes that, as written, the proposed Board may lack essential expertise in infectious diseases and biosecurity. NIAID notes that it is unclear if it is the drafters' intent to prohibit funding for an entire award prior to Board approval or only work related to potential "high-risk" research. Similarly, there is a later provision that would require a pause in research due to a change in circumstance, but it is unclear if such a pause would apply to an entire award or only work related to potential "high-risk research. OER It is unclear what added value the Board may have over current processes. The Board seems redundant with existing/current efforts and/or those being implemented following OSTP's mandate on DURC/PEPP. The Board's scope is very broad and may apply to a variety of research areas. We defer to OSP on the included research definitions. The Board will have significant control over funding decisions, which may interfere with existing statute on NIH funding activities.