Comment from K S
K SOpposeAcademic
Summary: A researcher at the University of Pittsburgh opposes the proposed regulation, specifically citing concerns over political appointee review and grant termination provisions. The commenter argues that these changes would introduce bias into the scientific process and hinder the ability of universities to invest in necessary research infrastructure.
I am a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh who has been consistently funded by NIH since 2002. My work has changed clinical practice in breast cancer.
I am writing to urge OMB to halt with several provisions, principally 200.205 (Political appointee review of grants) and 200.340 (grant termination). The entire premise of the scientific enterprise is that peers review the science and contribute meaningfully to decisions as to what will receive funding. Without this, there is an increased likelihood that bias will enter the system. A political appointee with no training in scientific methods is not qualified to evaluate the rigor and importance of the science. Further, the grant termination provision makes it impossible for universities to invest the appropriate infrastructure to allow science to move forward. Taken together, in short, other countries will surge forward and the US will lag behind in biomedical research that changes our world and saves lives.
I urge OMB not to finalize this rule.