Comment from Andrew Mugler
Andrew MuglerOpposeAcademic
Summary: An associate professor of biological physics opposes the proposed revisions because they would restrict professional expenses, limit the communication of scientific results, and impose excessive scrutiny on scientific activities. The commenter argues that these restrictions would hinder the dynamics of scientific discovery and the essential exchange of knowledge through conferences and publications.
[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450]
To Whom it May Concern:
I am an associate professor in biological physics.
I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, and 200.450 that would restrict typical professional expenses, curtail the communication of scientific results, and place excessive scrutiny on the activities of scientists.
Membership in the American Physical Society has been absolutely essential to my career. This society runs the premier meeting where we share our research and publishes the top physics journals internationally. As a member and past officer of the society, I have been part of the process that lifts the careers of countless young physicists through thesis awards, early career awards, and conference support.
In addition to standing conferences, new conferences emerge as new scientific subfields build momentum, which happens rapidly. About half the conferences I attend are newly discovered by me only months prior. Requiring conferences to be known in advance, over the multi-year timescale of a grant, is completely at odds with the dynamics of how science works.
Every aspect of doing science requires knowledge of what has been done before and concurrently, and the main conduit of this knowledge is publications. Simply put, doing science without access to the past record, in the form of publications, would be impossible because all discoveries are built on and respond to those that come before them.
I publish a paper in an academic journal, on average, every two months. These publications are not just critical to my career, they are the literal substance of my career. Without them, I would not have a job, my students would not advance in their jobs, other scientists would not know our findings, and the scientific enterprise would grind to a halt.
Conferences and papers are the lifeblood of science. Restricting scientists' ability to access them is equivalent to curbing scientific progress itself.