Comment from Andrew Groves

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a Professor and Department Head in a US medical school. I have served on NIH study sections for over 20 years, on an NIH Advisory Council for 5 years and on an NIH Institute Board of Scientific Counselors for 5 years. 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. All the faculty in my department are fearful that although their grants may receive strong evaluations after scientific peer review, their grants may not be awarded due to interference from political appointees with little or no scientific background or training. I lead a department of 17 faculty whose primary role is to carry out NIH-funded research. The majority of my department's operating budget comes from NIH grants. Our ability to carry out our research, and to plan strategically for future research directions would be compromised if we bear the risk of our active grants being terminated at any time. The ability of political appointees to terminate current grants or veto the awarding of future grants completely undermines the principles of unbiased peer review. It makes it harder for scientists to perform high risk, high impact science.