Comment from Gareth Eaton
Gareth EatonOpposeAcademic
Summary: A chemistry professor is opposing the proposed revisions to federal financial assistance regulations, arguing that they would undermine the integrity of the scientific peer review process. The commenter expresses concern that political review will prioritize non-scientific factors and that the ability to terminate grants at any time will make it difficult to provide stable support for students.
[200.205, 200.340]
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a Professor of chemistry with many years of successful NIH and NSF funded research.
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.
I have already had the experience of being told by an agency employee that the agency did not want my type research in their portfolio. The proposed political review will make this experience more common and less based on the science.
It will not be feasible to guarantee multi-year support to students working on a degree if the grant can be terminated at any time.
The scientific peer review system with priority established by the scientific community works well. Accepting negative decisions is based on a confidence in the integrity of the process. When that is voided, the response will be to ask the congressional offices to intercede in the award process.