Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Eric Pettersen
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed guidance, arguing that allowing political appointees to oversee research funding may prioritize short-term gains over basic research. They emphasize the importance of funding fundamental science and the dissemination of results, such as conference attendance, to ensure long-term technological innovation.
Putting decisions about the funding of scientific research into the hands of political appointees with little grasp of the merits of such research will greatly damage America's leadership in scientific advancement and the concomitant advantages it confers on our economy through technological innovation.
It is important to fund basic research whose "payoff" may not be immediately evident, particularly to a political appointee. The development of CRISPR gene-editing technology and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology were offshoots of basic research into natural phenomena, and were in no way foreseen when the research was initiated.
Similarly, not funding the dissemination of research results is extremely short sighted. Almost all scientific advancements are based on building on the earlier work of others, and making it difficult or impossible to learn about such work will retard the progress of science in general. Attendance at scientific conferences is how scientists brainstorm with others in their field about how to most quickly make progress on their research and how to surmount obstacles to advancement. Failing to fund either or both of these will greatly reduce the value produced by research grants.