Comment from Autumn Costelle

I am writing to express my staunch opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule change regarding federal grantmaking. Typically, federal funding has been awarded to proposals that, through the scientific peer review process, demonstrate immense scientific merit. This approach centers the recommendations of unbiased, scientific experts in the decision-making process, ensuring that projects that drive progress and innovation are the ones that receive federal support. The proposed rule change would completely upend this process. If the changes are finalized, political appointees will have the final say, and whether or not a project is funded will come down to its alignment with the President’s policy priorities. (A grant applicant’s past public statements can also be grounds for rejection.) The appointees in question do not need to have any relevant expertise or qualifications—but the calls they make will determine where hundreds of billions of dollars in funding go. Of course, the peer review process is not without its flaws—but to insist that political appointees know better than scientific experts and that this shift will reduce fund mismanagement is blatantly untrue. The only thing we’ll achieve by prioritizing political alignment over scientific progress is the complete devastation of America’s scientific enterprise. Please do not finalize this harmful rule change. Thank you.