During her first research trip abroad, Sarah Myhre was sexually harassed by her mentor. “He waited until I was one international flight and an eight-hour bus ride away from home and a twenty-minute walk into the jungle to make a pass at me,” the paleoceanographer wrote in a January article for Newsweek. “I declined his advances. I was there because I wanted to learn and advance professionally, not to be isolated and sexualized.” More than a decade later, she wrote, she’s finding herself envious of the many industries finally ridding themselves of serial abusers. As the headline on her piece asked, “When will science get its #MeToo movement?”

The answer may be now. On Thursday, the National Science Foundation—an independent government agency and one of the largest funders of research in America—will announce new sexual harassment reporting requirements for organizations that receive government grants. Under these requirements, universities and other institutions will have to tell NSF when principal investigators—senior-level scientists who oversee research projects and other scientists—have had an official finding of sexual misconduct against them or if they’ve been placed on administrative leave for a misconduct investigation. The new system relies on self-reporting by the university, but if NSF finds out that the university failed to report, the agency could cut off funding.

“We’re doing this to show that, in a very defined way, that NSF doesn’t tolerate sexual harassment or any form of harassment at any field sites,” NSF director France A. Córdova said on a call with reporters on Wednesday. “We believe that people who create hostile environments that are unsafe and disruptive really upset the whole balance of the scientific ecosystem, and discourage young scientists from contributing, and it can harm their careers and the progress of science.”

The changes come in response to concerns that principal investigators, or PIs, were still overseeing government-funded projects while they were subject to high-profile sexual misconduct investigations at their universities. Before these new requirements, universities were only required to tell NSF whether they were in compliance with Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded universities—not if there were official misconduct findings, or if a PI had been placed on leave. “The way we find out about things, principally, is from the media,” Córdova said. “That’s a pretty poor way to find out about something.”

But the new requirements don’t cover every concern. For example, universities won’t have to notify the government if a PI has been merely accused of sexual harassment. Córdova defended that decision on the Wednesday call. “I’m proud to be American in which due process is the law of the land, when people are considered innocent until proven guilty,” she said. She emphasized that there’s an exception to this rule if the professor is placed on leave, because that signifies the accusation is more serious or that professor’s presence in the lab was causing a problem. “That’s a big note to us that we should look at this more carefully.”