Comment from David Vanderbilt
David VanderbiltOpposeAcademic
Summary: A Distinguished Professor of Physics at Rutgers University opposes the proposed revisions to federal financial assistance regulations. The commenter argues that the changes introduce intrusive political oversight into the peer review process and that the ability to terminate active grants midstream would jeopardize long-term research planning and the recruitment of international talent.
[200.205, 200.340]
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a Distinguished Professor of Physics at Rutgers University with an active research program in the area of computational materials physics.
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 strongly disagree with the proposed intrusive political oversight into grant funding. Of course congress and the administration can steer research priorities by choosing programs to fund, but the long-standing principles of peer review, without political intrusion, should be allowed to remain in place as regards individual awards of grants.
I am particularly concerned about the provisions allowing active grants to be terminated midstream. Active academic research programs like mine require an ability to plan several years into the future. Hires of postdocs and graduate students are contingent on an ability to provide funding for at least two years in almost all cases. Convenience terminations of grants would force me to fire postdocs and grad students mid-stream.
Scientific research is internationally competitive. Our postdocs come from all over the world. What postdoc will come to the US, instead of Germany, the UK, or China, if there is a risk of mid-stream de-funding? This is a recipe for weakening, not strengthening, the scientific enterprise in the US.