Comment from Tracy Gleason
Tracy GleasonOpposeAcademic
Summary: The commenter, who identifies as a researcher in child development, opposes the proposed regulation because it shifts the power to approve scientific research from experts to political appointees. They argue that science should be treated as a public good and that political oversight undermines scientific rigor and the diversity of research populations.
The proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance seriously undermines the scientific process and the rigor of scientific research. Approval power for scientific research must be in the hands of scientists who have the expertise to judge the merits for a particular project. For example, my own work on imagination might not look particularly important to a political appointee, but any expert in child development would understand that imagination is the centerpiece of human thoughtsuch that understanding how it works is critical to supporting cognitive development. In addition, what we know about the effects of context on development demands that it be studied not just in one population (e.g., white Americans) but in a wide range of populations from around the world.
Politics has no place in science, as science and its benefits transcend borders and political parties. Science must be conceptualized as a public good, since that is what it is. Thank you for your consideration.