Comment from Sydney Shuster

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a PhD candidate in chemistry at Yale University. I research metabolism and how it changes during cancer, neurodegeneration, and metabolic syndrome. Before graduate school, I worked as a research scientist at the NIH trying to better understand Lou Gherig's disease and frontotemporal dementia. Currently, my research is funded by both the NIH and the NSF. This proposed rule change would have disastrous consequences on the future of scientific research and my own future in science. 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. Science is highly specialized and sometimes the benefits of a grant project are not immediately clear to someone outside the field. So called "basic science" has led to some of the greates advancements of the last 100 years. For example, it was scientists investigating jellyfish in the 1960s who discovered green fluorescent protein (GFP). GFP is the tool that lets us follow proteins in cells, shining a flashlight on microscopic processes. With GFP we can watch cancer cells grow in real time, follow HIV transmission in model systems, map the brain and more. A political appointee, despite the best intentions, cannot know the far-reaching impacts of proposed research. We have already seen this play out when DOGE cancelled grants it claimed were being used to promote gender idealogy--some of which were doing useful work like seeing how estrogen, which naturally increases in girls undergoing puberty, affects asthma. Just because the mice used in this study were being given estrogen, they weren't being "made transgender." Although scientists should be skilled at communicating their work to a broad audience, it takes an expert to assess the works merit. I can say that my work leads to better understandings of how our bodies produce fat and how dietary sugar and fat may play a role. But to assess whether my work is legitimate, you need to be a scientist with expertise in cell biology and vibrational spectroscopy. Cancelling grants for political reasons destroys job security in science. Which means scientists will leave the United States. Instead of drawing the best talent from all over the world, as the US has for decades, US citizens like myself will consider going to other countries where funding is more secure or will leave research all together. Peer review of science is the best system for evaluating the best and brightest new ideas. this rule could destroy that and set research back decades. I urge you not to pass this rule change.