Web of Biological Data Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Van Epps, Matt [R-TN-7]
- Committees
- Science, Space, and Technology Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 11, 2026
Bottom line
The bill establishes a centralized federal platform for biological data, aiming to accelerate AI-driven research while implementing robust security and access controls.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Secretary of Energy to establish a 'Web of Biological Data,' a centralized resource designed to provide researchers with a single point of entry to access diverse biological datasets, particularly those funded by the Federal Government. It also creates a research and development program for data science related to biological data management and includes phased implementation plans with cybersecurity safeguards and restrictions on data sharing with adversarial countries.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that centralizing biological data will significantly accelerate scientific discovery, particularly in fields leveraging artificial intelligence and advanced computational methods. They contend that it will enhance U.S. competitiveness in biotechnology, improve data quality and interoperability, and provide critical cybersecurity protections for sensitive biological information.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential for creating a single point of failure for cyberattacks by centralizing vast amounts of sensitive biological data. They could also argue about the significant cost of establishing and maintaining such a system, potential bureaucratic inefficiencies, or that it might duplicate existing efforts by other federal agencies or private entities.
The bill is relatively short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(b)
Establishment of the Web of Biological Data
This provision requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a centralized data resource called the 'Web of Biological Data' through a competitive grant to a National Laboratory. This Web will serve as a single entry point for researchers to access biological data, including federally funded datasets, and will incorporate metrics for data quality and tiered cybersecurity safeguards. It also establishes a research and development program for data science related to biological data.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this centralization is crucial for accelerating biological research, especially with advanced computational methods like AI, by overcoming data fragmentation and improving data accessibility and quality.
Critics contend
Potential critics might argue that centralizing data could create a single, attractive target for cyberattacks, or that a decentralized, federated approach might offer greater resilience and flexibility.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the benefits of centralized data access and standardization against potential risks associated with data consolidation and the complexity of integrating diverse data sources.
Section 2(e) and 2(f)
Phased Implementation and Expansion
The bill outlines a two-phase implementation plan. Phase I, to be completed within 2 years, involves testing an initial version of the Web focusing on specific data subtypes, developing initial API frameworks, and implementing cybersecurity. Phase II, within 5 years, requires expanding the Web to accommodate different data types, be accessible to U.S. researchers, and include features like a fully realized single point-of-entry interface, interoperability frameworks, and data formatted for AI training, along with restrictions on data sharing with adversarial countries.
Section 2(e)(1)(D), 2(f)(2)(F), 2(g)
Cybersecurity and Restricted Data Sharing
The bill mandates the inclusion of appropriate cybersecurity safeguards and access controls for the Web, including limiting access to adversarial countries and those not participating in reciprocal data sharing. It also requires the Director to seek an independent biannual assessment of the Web's cybersecurity safeguards and access controls by an external entity.
Section 2(h)
Advisory Board Establishment
The bill requires the Secretary to establish an advisory board within 180 days of selecting a National Laboratory for the Web. Chaired by the Director of the selected National Laboratory, the board will consist of 11 additional members, including representatives from industry, academia, other National Laboratories, and relevant Federal departments and agencies, with subject-matter experts on biosecurity research. This board is explicitly exempted from Chapter 10 of Title 5, United States Code (Federal Advisory Committee Act).
Section 2(k)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes specific appropriations for the Web of Biological Data initiative. It allocates $30,000,000 for the first three years for the research and development program, $310,000,000 for the first three years to carry out Phase I, and $80,000,000 for each of the subsequent two years (after Phase I completion) for general implementation of the section.
The advisory board established to oversee the Web of Biological Data is exempted from Chapter 10 of Title 5, United States Code, which is commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
Section 2(h)(4)
Why it matters:FACA exemptions are often included to streamline operations of advisory bodies, allowing them to meet and deliberate without public notice or detailed record-keeping requirements. While sometimes used to avoid scrutiny, it can also be a standard legislative practice for highly technical or sensitive advisory groups.
Case for: Proponents would argue that exempting the advisory board from FACA allows for more agile decision-making, fosters candid discussions among experts, and reduces administrative burdens, which are crucial for a rapidly evolving field like biological data science and AI.
Case against: Critics might contend that FACA exemptions reduce transparency and public accountability for a board overseeing a significant federal initiative, potentially allowing special interests or specific viewpoints to dominate without public scrutiny or input.
Estimated impact: The exemption impacts the transparency and public accessibility of the advisory board's proceedings and records.
This rule of construction clarifies that nothing in the Act shall be construed to supersede, modify, or waive any existing requirements related to privacy, informed consent, human-subjects protections, data use limitations, or protections against unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or reidentification applicable to biological data hosted in or accessible through the Web.
Section 2(l)
Why it matters:Such provisions are standard legislative practice to ensure that new legislation does not inadvertently override existing legal protections, especially concerning sensitive data like biological information. It's a necessary legal clarification rather than an attempt to hide something.
Case for: Proponents would highlight this provision as essential for protecting individual privacy and ethical research standards, ensuring that the new data infrastructure adheres to established legal and ethical frameworks for sensitive biological data.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such a provision, as it reinforces existing protections. However, some might argue that merely stating it doesn't guarantee robust enforcement, which depends on implementation.
Estimated impact: Ensures the continued application of existing privacy and ethical safeguards for all data integrated into the Web of Biological Data.