Comment from Aleks Milosavljevic
Aleks MilosavljevicOpposeAcademic
Summary: A professor of genetics and computational biology opposes the proposed revisions to federal grant review regulations. The commenter argues that the changes would politicize the peer review process, undermine scientific integrity, and cause talented researchers to leave the field due to the risk of arbitrary grant terminations.
[200.205, 200.340]
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a professor of genetics and computational biology.
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.
Peer review at the NIH is a transparent process that sets the highest global standard for investment in research. Political appointees would compromise this process by eliminating transparency and adding a level of uncertainty that will make longer-term projects that span multiple administrations (most projects) impossible. Politicization of science is bad enough -- institutionalization of the politicization through these new regulations would be much worse.
If active grants can be terminated at any time for political reasons, we will lose the most talented young scientists to industry and other countries. The highly popular, Congressionally mandated investment in research will be wasted on projects that are aiming for political alignment and not driven by science.
The politicization of peer review and politically motivated grant terminations will degrade scientific research and its translation into improvement of human health.