On Thanksgiving Eve, November 26, 2025, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested input from interested parties on federal policy updates “that aim to accelerate the American scientific enterprise, enable groundbreaking discoveries, and ensure that scientific progress and technological innovation benefit all Americans.” 90 Fed. Reg. 54412. OSTP states that “[t]hrough this Request for Information (RFI), OSTP seeks input from academia; private sector organizations; industry groups; state, local, and tribal governments; and other stakeholders regarding priorities for strengthening the science and technology (S&T) ecosystem to support both the expansion of scientific knowledge and the mechanisms to transition these discoveries into the marketplace.” According to OSTP, the RFI “will inform the formulation of Executive branch efforts to advance and maintain U.S. S&T leadership.” Responses are due on Boxing Day, December 26, 2025.
According to OSTP, multiple forces are reshaping how scientific research is conducted. OSTP states that new institutional models such as focused research organizations operate outside traditional academic structures; emerging questions in fields like quantum information science and biology require ever-closer collaboration between engineering and basic science; and rapid progress in artificial intelligence (AI) promises to accelerate discovery cycles. These shifts demand continuous improvement in how the federal government supports scientific research. OSTP notes that simultaneously, “America’s strategic competitors have placed unprecedented focus on scientific advancement.” The convergence of new scientific opportunities, intensifying global competition, and evidence that traditional approaches to research could be greatly improved “call for a comprehensive assessment of how the Federal government prioritizes and structures scientific research.”
Questions Included in the RFI
OSTP invites responses to one or more of the following questions:
(i) What policy changes to federal funding mechanisms, procurement processes, or partnership authorities would enable stronger public-private collaboration and allow America to tap into its vast private sector to drive better use-inspired basic and early-stage applied research?
(ii) How can the federal government better support the translation of scientific discoveries from academia, national laboratories, and other research institutions into practical applications? Specifically, what changes to technology transfer policies, translational programs, or commercial incentives would accelerate the path from laboratory to market?
(iii) What policies would encourage the formation and scaling of regional innovation ecosystems that connect local businesses, universities, educational institutions, and the local workforce — particularly in areas where the federal government has existing research assets like national laboratories or federally-funded research centers?
(iv) How can federal policies strengthen the role played by small- and medium-sized businesses as both drivers of innovation and as early adopters of emerging technologies?
(v) What empirically grounded findings from metascience research and progress studies could inform federal grantmaking processes to maximize scientific productivity and increase total return on investment?
(vi) What reforms will enable the American scientific enterprise to pursue more high-risk, high-reward research that could transform our scientific understanding and unlock new technologies, while sustaining the incremental science essential for cumulative production of knowledge?
(vii) How can the federal government support novel institutional models for research that complement traditional university structures and enable projects that require vast resources, interdisciplinary coordination, or extended timelines?
(viii) How can the federal government leverage and prepare for advances in AI systems that may transform scientific research — including automated hypothesis generation, experimental design, literature synthesis, and autonomous experimentation? What infrastructure investments, organizational models, and workforce development strategies are needed to realize these capabilities while maintaining scientific rigor and research integrity?
(ix) What specific federal statutes, regulations, or policies create unnecessary barriers to scientific research or the deployment of research outcomes?
(x) How can federal programs better identify and develop scientific talent across the country, particularly leveraging digital tools and distributed research models to engage researchers outside traditional academic centers?
(xi) How can the federal government foster closer collaboration among scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers, and better integrate training pathways, recognizing that breakthrough research often requires deep collaboration between theoretical and applied expertise?
(xii) What policy mechanisms would ensure that the benefits of federally-funded research — including access to resulting technologies, economic opportunities, and improved quality of life — reach all Americans?
(xiii) How can the federal government strengthen research security to protect sensitive technologies and dual-use research while minimizing compliance burdens on researchers?
Commentary
The “valley of death” — the gap between basic science and commercial viability — is an acute point of failure in the U.S. innovation pipeline. Overcoming this requires policy adjustments that treat industry partners as essential co-creators, not merely customers. OSTP’s request comes on the heels of efforts to restore “Gold Standard Science” to improve the federal scientific enterprise — a broader push to reshape all aspects of scientific activities and to ensure the United States remains a global leader in rigorous, evidence-based science. The RFI comes at a pivotal moment as the current scientific ecosystem is being rapidly reshaped by emerging fields (e.g., computing/physics (quantum), life sciences (biology/chemistry), and automation/data analysis (AI)) and intensifying global competition. To maintain U.S. leadership, the federal government must pivot from relying solely on traditional support models such as grants to universities and national laboratories to a framework that emphasizes efficient public-private collaboration and modern, science-driven regulation.
This RFI provides an opportunity to advocate to the White House for an improved pipeline from lab bench to commercial products. From a toxicological and regulatory perspective, implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is a relevant topic to consider. Regulatory uncertainty and delays in the implementation of TSCA, especially new chemical reviews, push an increasingly insurmountable obstacle to innovation onto businesses that are working to develop sustainable product chemistries. For sectors like advanced materials, biotechnology, and the chemical industry — fields fundamental to the Administration’s science and technology goals — the regulatory path to market must be transparent, timely, and risk-based. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) timely and risk-based review of existing chemicals will put de-selection pressure on traditional, high-hazard technologies. The implementation of TSCA provides a critical case study in how federal policy can inadvertently erect unnecessary barriers to bringing new, more sustainable chemistries and downstream products to market.
The current implementation of TSCA’s new chemical review process has, in practice, led to extended review times and a higher regulatory burden, particularly for sustainable and novel chemistries intended to replace older, less-safe legacy substances. Much can and should be done to improve this process. EPA must adhere strictly to statutory deadlines for premanufacture notice (PMN) review, especially for chemicals identified as low-volume, low-exposure, or those deemed inherently safer by design (e.g., green chemistry products). TSCA implementation must also better balance safety to human health and the environment with the goals of the circular economy. EPA should provide clear, explicit, and consistent guidance on how recycling, upcycling, and the reprocessing of materials — which may involve trace legacy substances — are treated under the new chemical and significant new use notice (SNUN) provisions. EPA must make both the PMN and SNUN review processes faster, more consistent, and considerate of actual risk (i.e., hazard and exposure), especially for innovations designed to be inherently safer or part of a sustainable circular economy. Punitive or ambiguous interpretations of these rules hinder domestic efforts to establish resilient supply chains for critical materials. Our domestic capability to manufacture chemical products is being off shored by some to avoid unknown and unpredictable regulatory outcomes under the current implementation of TSCA. Innovators are finding even the high barrier for market entry under the European Union’s (EU) Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) easier than commercializing under TSCA.
Some food for thought:
- Are there ways to strengthen public-private collaboration and commercialization, especially for small- and medium-sized businesses?
- Should EPA increase its use of robust computational toxicology and new approach methodologies to speed up assessments without sacrificing safety?
- How can EPA adopt smart policies and regulations to ensure public safety and environmental protection while reducing unnecessary barriers to innovation and providing market certainty for industry to confidently invest in research and development?
Consider submitting comments to OSTP with your ideas on how to advance the American (and global) scientific enterprise, perhaps by creating a regulatory approach that is effective, efficient, and science-based, with a clear and predictable pathway to market.