Two fronts opened this week on research policy: scientific organizations criticized National Institutes of Health proposals to cap how grant dollars may be used for journal publication fees, while the Commerce Department moved to scrutinize Harvard’s federally funded patents under Bayh‑Dole. Research groups filed roughly 900 public comments opposing NIH fee caps and warned about unintended impacts on dissemination and open science. Separately, Commerce threatened a review of Harvard’s patent portfolio and signaled possible use of the rarely invoked “march‑in” provisions of Bayh‑Dole—an extraordinary step that experts say could unsettle university technology‑transfer markets and licensing agreements. Legal scholars caution that exercising march‑in rights would be precedent‑setting and could deter private investment in commercializing federally supported inventions. Universities and industry groups say both actions—limits on publication charges and aggressive patent oversight—could reshape incentives for publishing and technology transfer, with consequences for federal research value and campus revenue streams.