Comment from Richard Schwartz
Richard SchwartzOpposeAcademic
Summary: A retired professor and PhD in Biochemistry from Michigan State University opposes the regulation, arguing that it allows political motives to override the peer review process. The commenter contends that this change will undermine scientific merit, leave strong proposals unfunded, and damage the reputation of U.S. science.
Implementation of 200.205 will undermine the peer review process that currently prioritizes awards on the basis of scientific merit by introducing purely political motives into the judgement of scientific proposals. Good science is above politics and should remain so. Empowering political appointees to overrule the judgement of peer review panels will both leave strong proposals unfunded and discourage the world’s greatest scientific community. It hurts science and damages the reputation of the United States. I speak from the perspective of being a PhD in Biochemistry and a Professor Emeritus of Microbiology, Immunology and Genetics at Michigan State University, who has been a NIH awardee and has participated on peer review panels.