Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Olivia Evans

I am a biomedical science doctoral trainee at a public R1 university and a lifelong American, and I can say with certainty that these proposed changes will destroy American leadership in the scientific space. Russell Vought has proposed that, rather than relying on the expertise of decades in peer review to judge the scientific merit of grant proposals, political appointees should instead make the final call on funding. Anyone who believes in science and democracy should be sickened by Vought's ideas and the NSF's endorsement of them. These proposed changes codify the politicization of science, increase the power of a single executive, and discards the idea of data-driven decision making. Already, we have seen how political appointees like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can replace factual information with opinion in formerly trusted sources like the CDC website. It resembles the Lysenkoism of Stalin's USSR. Back then, a unitary executive selected someone politically convenient, rather than pragmatic and qualified, to drive scientific decision-making in his country. That decision led to the deaths of millions as the regime dismissed data in favor of ideology, namely Lysenko's belief in debunked concepts like Lamarckist inheritance. Lysenko and Stalin drove out Russia's best scientists because they had the audacity to stick to facts. Vought's proposed rule changes would open the door for the same process to occur in the United States, and indeed encourage ideological decision-making over that which is data-driven. I myself have been forced to consider whether or not my career will continue in the U.S. Like generations of my family, I was born here, raised here, and planned on building my dreams here, dreams that have always included carrying out research that benefits a healthy America. Now, though, I have to consider the realism of these aspirations. When I finish my doctorate, what will be left of the scientific establishment in my country? Will work like mine be rejected, because understanding bacterial pathogenesis and transmission is inconvenient to the president? I have spent my entire adult life working to be a respected scientist, but I no longer know if I'll be able to do that in the U.S. Additionally, we have to address the idea that industry funding can replace federal funding. While I am personally primarily an academic, industry scientists do play an absolutely critical role in applying basic biology to practical interventions. Every dollar diverted from industry to mechanistic studies normally funded by federal grants, however, decreases the investment in lifesaving medicine. This outcome will be bad enough on its own, but there will also be an economic penalty. Not every American is a scientist, but every American will feel the pain of this decision. I strongly urge the NSF to reconsider the adoption of Vought's proposal.