Comment from MELISSA Rogers

Extensive damage will be wreaked on American science if this federal rules change occurs. Federal grants are normally allocated through rigorous peer review. As a Rutgers NJ Medical School professor specializing in biochemistry and molecular biology research for over 40 years, I review applications proposing to understand and treat complex biochemical pathologies. Like most grant reviewers, I take hours to evaluate, rank, and write clear and comprehensive critiques of each proposal. This process has led to phenomenal advances in biomedical sciences and other technologies and ensured that our tax dollars are well-spent. Indeed, an estimated $2.5 are earned for every dollar spent on research funded by the National Institutes of Health. The new rules claim to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight by adding several layers of review by political appointees without scientific expertise. The technical assessments by scientific experts regarding whether a proposed study uses sound methods, is properly controlled, and fills a significant gap in scientific understanding will be reduced to advisory. If executive priorities shift, then active projects may be terminated without notice or justification. Ethical obligations to human research participants, and years of research that cannot simply stop and start without massive waste will be disregarded. Scientific progress requires a community with open communication. The proposed rules would inhibit communication through conference attendance, publications, and journal subscriptions. Collaborations with international scientists would be banned. Public communication of findings on subjects deemed politically sensitive could be barred. Despite the claim of transparency, the declaration of a broad national interest exception could exempt competitions for federal funding from public notice. The proposed rules will further destabilize the rigorous and historically successful funding that made American science the best in the world.