Bagenstos emphasized the need for universities to exhibit courage in navigating their response to new policies. He noted that if institutions deem the associated risks too high, they may avoid challenging current policies despite their potential legal issues. He explained that the criteria for False Claims Act liability are stringent, requiring proof that an individual knowingly made a false statement or willfully overlooked the truth. Legal experts, including Bagenstos, argue that universities have a strong position in court; however, concerns about the potential for lengthy and expensive litigation deter them from pursuing legal action.
Richard Epstein, a libertarian legal scholar, proposed that a trade organization like the Association of American Universities could initiate a legal challenge against the new NIH regulations. He asserted that the stipulations regarding spending are unconstitutional because such conditions should be sanctioned by Congress, arguing that they are not related to scientific research.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not responded to multiple requests for comments regarding the new terms.
Some have expressed surprise at the inclusion of language related to the False Claims Act. Michael Yassa, a neurobiology and behavior professor at the University of California, Irvine, was unaware of the changes until approached by Undark. During an interview, he reviewed a recent Notice of Award but could not provide a definitive opinion on the new terms, suggesting he would consult with a legal team.
Attorney Andrew Miltenberg, recognized for his expertise in Title IX litigation, voiced stronger objections to the changes. He questioned the rationale behind the new grant language, stating, “I don’t think it belongs in there. I don’t think it’s legal, and I think it’s going to take some lawsuits to have courts interpret the fact that there’s no real place for it.”
This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.
