Comment from Taia Mendenhall

I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance. I am a PhD student in molecular biology and biochemistry, and every day I work alongside scientists whose sole purpose is to understand the unknown and improve human health. The scientific community is not a political institution. It is a community built on curiosity, evidence, transparency, and rigorous testing. We do not conduct experiments to validate political beliefs or support one ideology over another. We follow the data wherever it leads, even when the results challenge our own hypotheses or expectations. The proposed changes threaten this foundation by creating uncertainty around federal research funding and introducing opportunities for scientific priorities to become intertwined with political priorities. Research should be evaluated on the strength of its methodology, reproducibility, and potential public benefit, not on whether its findings align with the preferences of those in power. Scientific truth cannot and should not be determined by politics. Our country is already experiencing a period in which public trust in science has become increasingly fragile. Policies that create the appearance that research funding or scientific inquiry can be influenced by political ideology risk deepening that distrust. The public deserves confidence that federally funded science is guided by evidence, independent peer review, and scientific merit alone. Once confidence in that independence is weakened, it becomes far more difficult for scientists to communicate findings that protect public health, inform policy, and improve lives. As researchers, we do not ask whether a patient is Republican or Democrat before searching for a cure. We do not ask whether a family supports one political party before studying Alzheimers disease, cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, or infectious diseases. We seek answers because disease does not discriminate, and neither should science. Every experiment we perform, every hypothesis we test, and every discovery we pursue is intended to benefit society as a whole, regardless of politics, geography, or ideology. Federal research funding is an investment in the future. It supports graduate students and early-career scientists who dedicate years of training to solving problems that affect millions of Americans. It fuels innovation, strengthens our economy, advances medicine, and ensures that the United States remains a global leader in scientific discovery. Undermining confidence in the independence of science or creating instability in the research enterprise will discourage talented young scientists, disrupt ongoing work, and delay breakthroughs that patients and families are waiting for. Science is strongest when it is free to ask difficult questions, challenge assumptions, and pursue evidence without fear of political interference. The pursuit of truth is not partisan. Discovery is not partisan. The scientific method is not partisan. These principles have allowed the United States to become a world leader in biomedical research and innovation, and they deserve to be protected. I respectfully urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw this proposal and preserve a federal funding system that protects scientific independence, rewards rigorous research, and ensures that scientific merit, not political ideology, remains the foundation of federally funded research. The health, prosperity, and future of our nation depend on it.