Risky Research Review Act

Enumerated powers · passes · severity: minor

The federal government has authority to regulate and fund scientific research under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (Spending Clause) and Clause 3 (Commerce Clause). The bill's focus on high-risk life sciences research that could pose a significant threat to public health falls within the federal interest in interstate commerce and national security. However, the bill's reach into pre-enactment awards and its broad definition of 'high-risk' may stretch beyond these enumerated powers, but the core authority to fund research is present.

Bill of Rights · passes · severity: minor

The bill does not directly infringe on the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments. It does not restrict speech, religion, assembly, press, or petition. It does not involve search and seizure, self-incrimination, or cruel and unusual punishment. The bill's requirements for attestation and review are regulatory, not criminal, and do not implicate the Bill of Rights directly. However, the potential for disciplinary action against agency employees and loss of funding for researchers could raise due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment, but these are not direct violations of the Bill of Rights.

Individual liberty · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill restricts the freedom of researchers and institutions to conduct life sciences research without federal oversight. While the government has a compelling interest in preventing biosecurity threats, the bill's broad definition of 'high-risk' and the requirement for federal approval before funding could be used to restrict research that does not pose a significant threat. The burden is on the government to justify restrictions, and the bill's vague criteria may not meet that burden. The bill also imposes penalties on researchers who fail to attest, which could chill legitimate research. This raises concerns under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as it restricts individual liberty without a clear compelling justification.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill fails the decentralization test. (1) An individual or family cannot handle high-risk life sciences research without government involvement, but (2) local communities and (3) states could potentially handle this research with their own oversight mechanisms. (4) The bill consolidates decision-making at the federal level by creating a new federal board to review all high-risk research, which is more centralized than necessary. States and local institutions already have biosafety committees and regulations that could address these risks. The bill's federal mandate overrides state and local autonomy, violating the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill raises due process concerns. It allows the board to review awards made before enactment, which could retroactively affect funding decisions. It also imposes disciplinary action on agency employees and loss of funding for researchers without clear procedural safeguards, such as notice and hearing. The bill's criteria for 'high-risk' are vague, and the board's determinations may be arbitrary. This implicates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which requires fair notice and a fair hearing before deprivation of property (funding) or liberty (professional standing).