Comment from Heike Wulff

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a Professor of Pharmacology who teaches medical and graduate students and runs a mostly NIH funded research laboratory. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, and 200.450 that would restrict typical professional expenses, curtail the communication of scientific results, and place excessive scrutiny on the activities of scientists. Attending the annual meetings of professional societies such as the Biophysical or the American Chemical Society has been tremendously helpful over the course of my career and it provides important networking and presentation opportunities for students and postdoctoral researchers. Attending meetings is often the first step for them to find jobs in industry or academic. I literally have scientist from Genentech recruit my students at their posters at the Biophysical Society meeting. It would be very sad to lose the opportunities. I understand that it will be possible to budget ahead for certain meetings but would remove any flexibility to attend, smaller themed meetings which are often really important for the field and for providing junior investigators with presentation opportunities. For example, I was at a small meeting that renamed a major vascular phenomenon. This flexibility should be possible. I could not imagine doing science without access to literature and databases like SciFinder, Pubmed and PDB. I am one of the most cited researchers in my area and often author very widely read review articles in addition to my primary research focused on ion channels in the immune system. These articles often lead to pharmaceutical companies seeking me out as a consultant. Restricting professional activities will have a devastating effect on the career of beginning scientists.