Comment from Ian Boggero

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am an assistant professor in clinical psychology at the University of Kentucky College of Dentistry. I have current NIH funding and am considering applying for future awards. 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. Being a member of professional societies has been instrumental to my career. These societies allow me to stay at the cutting-edge of scientific knowledge and allow for professional networking that would otherwise be unfeasible. Most of my work has originated from relationships that were cultivated in the context of my professional memberships in the American Academy of Orofacial Pain and the International Association for the Study of Pain; both of these organizations are a-political in nature. Conferences allow me to obtain name recognition and share the results of my NIH-funded work with experts in my field. These experts would never be at the same place at the same time if it were not for professional conferences, and most of the researchers at these conferences would not attend without financial support from the NIH. Removing this as an allowable expense would be catastrophic for the dissemination of science, which would undermine the entire goal of doing science in the first place. In summary, attending conferences is a key activity of science. I vehemently oppose any restrictions on using NIH-funding for conference travel. I do, however, support the proposed ban on using funds for open-access journals, as many of these journals are predatory in nature and undermine the quality of science.