Comment from Rachel Leon MD PhD
Rachel Leon MD PhDOpposeAcademic
Summary: An early-career researcher opposes the proposed rule, arguing that increased political involvement and a shift away from peer review will undermine scientific independence and merit. They express concern that the resulting uncertainty and funding restrictions will hinder innovation, limit international collaboration, and weaken the pipeline for future scientists.
As an early-career researcher at a critical inflection point of my career, I strongly oppose the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. Increasing political involvement in grant decisions will threaten scientific independence, and shifting away from traditional peer review risks undermining scientific merit as the primary basis for funding. This would work against the goal to fund rigorous scientific projects and undermine the careers of good scientists. In addition, these changes will introduce uncertainty and unpredictability into grant funding, disrupting discovery and delaying important scientific work. Why would the brightest trainees choose to pursue a career in medical discovery or basic science with this uncertainty? Reduced funding levels have already led to fewer trainees at my institution choosing to work on innovative ways to diagnose and treat important diseases that affect human lives. This instability will surely weaken the pipeline of future scientists. Restrictions on the use of funds for disseminating findings may limit the sharing of critical research, while overly broad limits on international collaboration could hinder partnerships and slow innovation. Collectively, these impacts threaten the United States role as a global leader in science and medical research. I strongly urge OMB not to finalize the proposed rule.