Comment from Douglas Kelley
Douglas KelleyOpposeAcademic
Summary: A professor of mechanical engineering opposes the proposed revisions to federal grant review processes. The commenter argues that allowing political appointees to override peer review and terminate active grants would undermine scientific integrity and jeopardize the jobs and careers of researchers.
[200.205, 200.340]
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a full professor of mechanical engineering.
I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies' ability to identify and fund impactful research.
If political appointees have the authority to override peer review, my research in energy storage and energy efficiency might be rejected or cancelled.
If active grants can be terminated at any time for political reasons, the faculty, research staff, postdoc, and student researchers who are supported partly or fully by my grants might suddenly be out of a job and would probably halt their research careers.
Political appointees lack the training to evaluate scientific proposals or projects. The president of the United States is not a king and should not have carte blanche authority over the research that makes our nation prosperous and secure. Checks and balances are fundamental to American democracy. The founding fathers would fiercely condemn the proposed rule.