Comment from H A

I am an American public health scientist, most of whose career has been committed to serving the American people through the best science and community collaboration I can deliver. The Proposed Rule would be unequivocally damaging to scientific research and development in the United States, and I am writing in my strong opposition. In addition to being a scientist and investigator, I have also been a manager; stability is important to me both as a researcher and as a person who has to support their family and who works for/employs people who need to support themselves and their families as well. Research is a long process that not only depends on the commitment of funders to a multi-year process, but requires security to build up the years of partnerships, collaboration, evidence, and writing to even receive a grant in the first place. The type of political oversight proposed would hamstring this process, is too arbitrary to plan for, and keep us from asking questions with true uncertainty that others can build on. In addition, I do not support the preemption of peer review, a key part of the scientific process that helps ensure the feasibility, ethics, innovation, and overall strength that make this such an incredible place to do research. I urge you to not pass this proposal.