Earlier this week Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL), Chair of the House Research and Science Education Subcommittee, sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look at three general questions:

1. What federal requirements, not limited to legislative mandates, reporting requirements, and regulations create reporting burdens for research universities?

2. How research university requirements under OMB Circulars A-21, A-133, and Federal Acquisition Regulation 4.703 balance regulatory burden with accountability for federal funds?

3. What might be the potential benefits and disadvantages of modifying requirements, including those “that experts and universities have identified as most burdensome?”

Congressman Brooks wrote that it was evident, based on a recommendation in the National Research Council’s report on research universities, two hearings he convened in his subcommittee to follow up on the report, and additional conversations he held with the university research community, that “the current regulatory environment may be limiting the growth of fundamental basic scientific research.”

“While it is necessary and imperative that research universities maintain transparent and accountable systems to track the use of federal dollars,” he said in the letter, “I am concerned with the amount of time and resources being spent on duplicative and burdensome paperwork and red tape in the conduct of federally funded scientific research.”