Comment from Stephen Mahler
Stephen MahlerOpposeAcademic
Summary: An American researcher and NIH-funded lab head opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it undermines the established peer-review system for biomedical research. The commenter contends that political intervention in the review process will harm the scientific pipeline and diminish U.S. global leadership in research.
Section 200.205: As an American researcher whose ~10 person lab is funded by NIH, and as an active reviewer of scientific research in my area of expertise (addiction neuroscience), I strongly oppose this proposed rule.
The rule would undercut the tried and true strategy of peer review of US biomedical research. While like any human endeavor peer review is not perfect, the success of this model for propelling US science to the top of the world cannot be disputed--this is the system which helped us beat the Soviet Union scientifically, which employed a politically-dominated scientific establishment. International competition is no less intense today, and peer-review is no less necessary.
Implementation of political intervention in this process will not just hurt individual researchers, but it will decimate our pipeline of the next generation of scientists, and it will mean the sunset of US preeminence in the world in basic and applied scientific research.