Funding Agency Stop Work Orders: Sample IRB Guidelines for Investigators. View Now
Skip to main content

Reg Roundup 1.1: News You May Have Missed + AI Policy Movement

Posted on by

Not every consequential federal development arrives as a headline. This article opens with four items that may have slipped past you, including a K-award change that does not take effect until 2027 and a new HHS rulemaking on graduate medical education accreditation, and then turns to the growing federal activity on artificial intelligence in research. Several of these items surfaced as blog posts, White House review listings, or Unified Agenda entries rather than formal rules, so we explain what each one is, how much weight it carries, and why it may matter at your institution.

News You May Have Missed

NIH updated requirements for its Career Development (K) Award programs, consolidating K funding opportunities into parent announcements, dropping the data management and sharing plan requirement for K applications, and barring the use of K funds to conduct clinical trials, for institutions  with active K-award recipients.  A list of current NIH K-award types can be found here.  This consequential policy change applies to applications with due dates on or after October 12, 2027, and current K funding opportunities expire by July 13, 2027 (except K00, K12, K43, and K76), so institutions have time to prepare. From what we are hearing, this change will have a disproportionate impact on smaller research programs that have a high proportion of early career investigators relying on this type of award to conduct research. NOT-OD-26-098

FDA published a Transparency Roadmap that reaches clinical research directly, and it arrived as a blog post rather than a formal notice. In an October 2 FDA Voices post, FDA committed to proactively publishing redacted Form 483s and additional inspection reports, and it named bioresearch monitoring (BIMO), the inspection program that covers clinical investigators, sponsors, and IRBs, as an area where the public has asked for more transparency. For IRBs, investigators, and sites, this means BIMO inspection findings could become publicly searchable without a FOIA request, and consent language describing who will see study data may deserve a fresh look. Implementation details are still to come; there is no docket or comment period. FDA Voices post

FDA’s successor to its Diversity Action Plans guidance appears to be on the way, under a new name and with a new focus. On October 6, 2026, FDA sent the White House a document titled “Clinical Trial Enrollment Action Plans to Improve Representation of the U.S. Intended Use Population in Clinical Studies” (RIN 0910-ZD84). The document details are not public, but the title tracks the 2024 Diversity Action Plans draft guidance while reframing “representation” around U.S. patients, consistent with FDA leadership’s stated concern about trials moving overseas. FDORA made these enrollment plans a statutory requirement for pivotal drug trials and most device studies once FDA finalizes guidance, so this document will shape sponsor enrollment plans and, downstream, the recruitment materials, eligibility criteria, and site selection that IRBs review. Unanswered questions: whether it will be issued as draft or final, and whether it keeps any demographic enrollment goals. OIRA detail  |  2024 draft guidance (background)

HHS is preparing a rule on graduate medical education (GME) accreditation, and it appears to be a brand-new initiative with no existing home in the Department. The Unified Agenda lists “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Graduate Medical Education” (RIN 0991-AC41) as an “Other Significant” proposed rule from the Office of the Secretary, with an NPRM target of February 2027. The abstract says only that it will “address regulations related to HHS Graduate Medical Education (GME) funding and new accrediting bodies,” and no legal authority or CFR citation has been identified yet. The title echoes Executive Order 14279 (April 2025), which directed the Departments of Justice and Education, in consultation with HHS, to investigate discrimination by medical schools and GME entities tied to the LCME and ACGME and to consider ending their federal recognition. Since then, the Department of Education has proposed a broad accreditation overhaul that would make it easier for new accreditors to gain recognition, and Secretary Kennedy has secured voluntary commitments from LCME, ACGME, and others to expand nutrition education. Our read, which is an inference and not something HHS has said, is that the likely lever is Medicare GME payment: 42 CFR 415.152 defines an approved GME program by reference to ACGME and a few other bodies “or other organization determined by the Secretary,” so a rule could open that door to new accreditors and attach conditions. Meanwhile, ACGME separately sought comment through October 22  on a major rewrite of its Common Program Requirements (a 43 percent reduction in requirements, proposed effective July 1, 2028), and the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association reports that the draft would also loosen some work-hour protections, including cutting required rest after 24-hour call from 14 to 12 hours. ACGME’s stated rationale is burden reduction and does not mention federal action, so any link to the HHS rulemaking is unconfirmed. Academic medical centers that sponsor residency and fellowship programs should watch what HHS asks of accreditors and whether GME funding eligibility shifts away from ACGME accreditation alone. Unified Agenda entry  |  Executive Order 14279  |  HHS announcement  |  ED proposed rule  |  ACGME proposal  |  EMRA summary  |  42 CFR 415.152

NIH proposed a substantial modernization of its biosafety oversight framework. A new, comprehensive Biosafety Policy for Research Involving Biohazards would replace the current NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, a framework that has governed institutional biosafety committee oversight for decades. Comments are due October 19, 2026. Federal Register notice

Federal Moves on AI in Research

Federal agencies are moving on artificial intelligence in research on several fronts at once. FDA is asking for input on how to regulate generative AI-enabled medical devices, NIH is proposing a new office to coordinate its AI policy, and ORI has issued guidance on misconduct allegations that involve generative AI. None of these items creates a new binding requirement for your institution today, but together they show where expectations for the use and oversight of AI in research are headed.

FDA is asking for public feedback on how it should regulate generative AI-enabled medical devices.  The discussion paper referenced here is more concrete than the typical early-stage RFI. It proposes a two-axis framework for risk assessment, a competency-based approach to premarket evaluation that combines device benchmarking with clinical confirmation, risk-proportionate postmarket monitoring strategies, and specific considerations for foundation models and agentic AI systems. Acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas framed the effort as part of a broader push for U.S. leadership in AI development. Comments close October 19, 2026 , on docket FDA-2026-N-7874.  CDRH’s fiscal year 2027 guidance agenda lists a generative AI guidance as “under construction,” so the feedback FDA collects here is likely to shape that guidance. CDRH FY2027 guidance agenda  |   FDA press release 

NIH proposed creating an Office of the NIH Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer, the likely future home of NIH policy on AI in funded research. The announcement is quite sparse; it’s unclear what would be under the purview of this office, how it would interact with other federal efforts on policy development here, or how quickly this new office might be launched.  Comments are due October 28, 2026. Federal Register notice

ORI provided guidance on AI usage and research misconduct. New ORI guidance addresses how Research Integrity Officers should approach cases where generative AI tools are implicated in fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism allegations. ORI blog post

We want your feedback!

How did we do?  Too much? Wanted more? Are there items on which you’d like for us to publish a deep-dive?  Let us know on LinkedIn or provide your feedback here.

How to read a Reg Roundup:

Inaugural Edition of Reg Roundup: