Committee approves Risky Research Review Act to create presidential panel for high‑risk life‑sciences work
July 30, 2025 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: Senate Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
A Senate committee voted to advance S.854, the Risky Research Review Act, a measure to create a presidentially appointed panel to review high‑risk life‑sciences research and reduce conflicts of interest. The committee approved the bill by recorded voice/roll call and reported the motion agreed to after the tally showed more yeas than nays.
The measure’s sponsor told the committee the bill responds to concerns from U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy that COVID‑19 might have originated in a laboratory and to broader worries about risky research becoming possible by purchase of genetic material online. “We’re prompted to do this work because the CIA, the FBI, and the DOE all say with varying degrees of confidence that they fear COVID‑19 could have started as a lab leak,” the sponsor said, and cited an example raised in the hearing of a researcher who bought gene fragments online to recreate the Spanish flu.
The bill would establish a “high‑risk life sciences panel” appointed by the president and include conflict‑of‑interest protections, according to the sponsor’s description. Supporters said a permanent statutory review body would be preferable to an administrative ban because a law remains in place beyond a single administration.
Senator Peters (Senator Peters) voiced support during the markup. The clerk’s announcement reported the committee tally as yeas 11, nays 2 (with some proxy votes recorded separately) and the motion was agreed to.
No amendments were recorded in the transcript. The sponsor said the committee passed a similar version in the prior Congress by voice vote or unanimous consent (noted as 13–1 last Congress), and urged the committee to move the bill again.
Discussion only, direction to staff, and formal action were distinct in the transcript: members discussed reasons for statutory review, the sponsor described the panel’s conflict‑of‑interest goals, and the committee voted to report the bill. The transcript did not state implementation details such as membership criteria beyond the sponsor’s general description.
The committee moved on to subsequent agenda items after the vote; the transcript did not identify a schedule for floor consideration or any required follow‑up reporting tied to this committee action.
The measure’s sponsor told the committee the bill responds to concerns from U.S. intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy that COVID‑19 might have originated in a laboratory and to broader worries about risky research becoming possible by purchase of genetic material online. “We’re prompted to do this work because the CIA, the FBI, and the DOE all say with varying degrees of confidence that they fear COVID‑19 could have started as a lab leak,” the sponsor said, and cited an example raised in the hearing of a researcher who bought gene fragments online to recreate the Spanish flu.
The bill would establish a “high‑risk life sciences panel” appointed by the president and include conflict‑of‑interest protections, according to the sponsor’s description. Supporters said a permanent statutory review body would be preferable to an administrative ban because a law remains in place beyond a single administration.
Senator Peters (Senator Peters) voiced support during the markup. The clerk’s announcement reported the committee tally as yeas 11, nays 2 (with some proxy votes recorded separately) and the motion was agreed to.
No amendments were recorded in the transcript. The sponsor said the committee passed a similar version in the prior Congress by voice vote or unanimous consent (noted as 13–1 last Congress), and urged the committee to move the bill again.
Discussion only, direction to staff, and formal action were distinct in the transcript: members discussed reasons for statutory review, the sponsor described the panel’s conflict‑of‑interest goals, and the committee voted to report the bill. The transcript did not state implementation details such as membership criteria beyond the sponsor’s general description.
The committee moved on to subsequent agenda items after the vote; the transcript did not identify a schedule for floor consideration or any required follow‑up reporting tied to this committee action.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
