Comment from Cynthia McCollough

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a full professor of medical physics and biomedical engineering. 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. My research program advances medical imaging through collaboration with equipment manufacturers who make cutting edge technology. Because some of these companies are not based in the U.S., a U.S.-first policy by the president could allow for a political appointee to override peer review, where my grants have received top scores. My work therefore may not be funded, and the American public would not have access to the advanced medical imaging techniques that I am developing. My research program employees approximately 30 people. They depend on my funding for their livelihood. Political termination at any time of active grants would leave hard working, highly skilled workers without jobs. If jobs in my team are uncertain because of this, I will not be able to hire the right people to advance the science that I am pursueing. Science relies on data and physical laws. Scientists carefully pursue new information to advance human health and welfare. Politics has no role in this process. In the past, scientists who realized that the earth was not flat were persecuted because that fact did not agree with political (in this case the church) policy. We cannot resort to allowing politics to drive science. It should be the other way around. America must allow strong science to advance our nation, build wealth, and improve our quality of life.