Comment from Alan Cohen
Alan CohenOpposeAcademic
Summary: A scientist and researcher at a major research institution opposes Section 200.340, arguing that allowing the termination of grants for political reasons would cause projects to "crash" and lead to a loss of institutional knowledge. They contend that such uncertainty would drive talent away from scientific careers and that funding priorities should be established upfront rather than mid-project.
I am a scientist and researcher at a major research institution writing on my own behalf, working on understanding the aging process and how to keep people healthy during aging. I am writing to oppose section 200.340, which would allow grants to be terminated midstream for political reasons. Research is like flying an airplane - it requires lots of resources to get it up and running and off the ground, and once it's going, you can't cut off the fuel midflight without the whole thing crashing and burning. Even if some research may be misaligned with current priorities - which is understandable - cutting things off midstream will cause projects to lose key personnel and institutional knowledge as employees are no longer paid and move to other jobs. Often - usually - these employees will have skill sets that go beyond a single controversial project, and their loss will severely hamper the capability of scientists to do their work in general. More broadly, the uncertainty raised by this potential will drive many talented individuals away from careers which will now have less stability. Any preference for certain projects should be exercised upfront in the choice of projects, not after funding has been awarded, otherwise the whipsawing between priorities across administrations will make science unworkable. In other words, if Section 200.340 takes effect, it will severely impinge on our nation's ability to do world-class science even in domains that are not targeted for cuts. I therefore request that Section 200.340 not be finalized.