PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 164.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2025
Risky Research Review Act
This bill establishes the Life Sciences Research Security Board to oversee the award of federal funding for high-risk life sciences research. High-risk life sciences research means the study of an organism, virus, or related product that could be misapplied to pose a significant threat to the public or could enhance the transmissibility or virulence of certain high-risk pathogens (e.g., Ebola).
Specifically, the bill establishes the board as an independent agency that must review proposed high-risk life sciences research, determine whether a federal agency may award funding for the research, and determine minimum required controls for funded research. Entities that are seeking federal funding must attest to whether their research is high-risk life sciences research. Agencies must certify the validity of these attestations and submit proposed high-risk life sciences research to the board. Agencies must also notify the board of intended awards for other life sciences research for potential review.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In making its determinations, the board must consider specified factors, including whether the benefits of the research outweigh the risks. The bill prohibits agencies from awarding federal funding for high-risk life sciences research without approval of the board or for life sciences research currently under board review. The board may also review awards that were made before the bill’s enactment.
Entities that fail to properly attest to the nature of their research may lose their eligibility for funding. Additionally, agency employees who fail to comply with the bill's requirements are subject to disciplinary action.
People & committees
Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 164.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Reported by Senator Paul without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 21, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.854 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.854 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.854 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.854 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.