Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Christophe Guilbert

Political priorities can legitimately help determine broad funding levels and identify national research priorities, such as climate change, alternative energy, public health, or national security. However, political priorities should not become an unpredictable litmus test applied after scientific review—or after a multiyear grant has already begun. I am not necessarily opposed to political influence, but the mechanism of that influence should remain separate from individual funding decisions and should never rely on coercion. Political officials should not have the final word on which specific projects, laboratories, or researchers receive funding. Those decisions should remain in the hands of qualified scientific committees. Political leaders often favor projects that appear likely to produce immediate profits, economic advantages, or technological gains. This overlooks the fact that many important technologies originated from fundamental research that initially had no obvious commercial application, immediate profitability, or political popularity. For example, MRI developed from fundamental research into nuclear magnetic resonance and the behavior of atomic nuclei in magnetic fields. This work was originally conducted to understand basic physical and chemical properties, not to create a medical imaging technology. Decades later, it became the foundation of one of the most important diagnostic tools in modern medicine. Similarly, CRISPR gene-editing technology originated from research into how bacteria defend themselves against viruses. At the time, this appeared to be a narrow question in basic microbiology with no obvious commercial application. It eventually led to a revolutionary method for modifying DNA, with major applications in medicine, agriculture, biotechnology, and the study of genetic diseases. These examples demonstrate why research should not be evaluated solely according to its immediate profitability or whether it is politically popular with politicians. Fundamental discoveries often create the scientific foundations for technologies that cannot be predicted when the original research begins. Only scientists with relevant expertise can properly assess the scientific merit, feasibility, and potential long-term importance of a research proposal. Research budgets should therefore be allocated to independent scientific agencies and committees, without the possibility of funds being withdrawn simply because a particular project becomes politically unpopular. Political leaders and scientists should maintain an open dialogue, and political officials may suggest emerging national priorities or areas that deserve greater attention. However, they should not influence the selection of individual laboratories, researchers, or grants. Government officials may establish and enforce general rules concerning fraud, waste, national security, accountability for public funds, conflicts of interest, and the misuse of grants for purposes unrelated to the original award. However, decisions involving scientific conduct or the scientific value of a project should be reviewed by an independent scientific committee, which should have the final say. That said, scientific independence should not mean an absence of accountability. Scientists and scientific committees must also be subject to oversight, transparency requirements, conflict-of-interest rules, audits, and independent review. The goal should be a balanced system in which political institutions establish broad public priorities and accountability standards, while qualified scientists retain authority over scientific evaluation and individual funding decisions.