Comment from Eva Zurek
Eva ZurekOpposeAcademic
Summary: A SUNY Distinguished professor of theoretical chemistry opposes the proposed revisions to federal grant review processes. The commenter argues that allowing political appointees to override peer review would undermine scientific integrity, stifle innovation, and hinder the ability to attract students and plan transformative research projects.
[200.205, 200.340]
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a SUNY Distinguished professor of theoretical chemistry, working in prediction of novel materials using computation, and AI.
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.
Giving political appointees the ability to override peer review is dangerous and could result in a system similar to the former USSR where scientific theories were judged partly by whether they aligned with Marxist-Leninist ideology and state goals. This led to less innovation and the USSR was not a leader in science, despite excellent scientists born there.
I would not be able to attract students, postdocs, nor plan any innovative and transformative projects.
I worry that such "oversight" would kill innovation, scientific discovery, and training future leaders in science.