Comment from Krista Capps

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am an associate professor of ecology at the University of Georgia. 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. Membership in professional societies and associations has had a major impact on my career and research. In my own experience, these organizations have helped me build a professional network that extends far beyond my home institution. Through society meetings and activities, I have met scientists, students, mentors, agency partners, and industry representatives who have shaped the questions I ask, the methods I use, and the collaborations I pursue. These societies have also been important for learning about new research methods, assays, analytical approaches, funding opportunities, and job opportunities. For example, conversations at professional meetings have helped me identify new approaches that I could bring back to my own research program, rather than having to develop everything independently. This improves the quality of my science and helps make my work more efficient. Professional societies have also supported my development as a mentor. They create opportunities for students, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists to meet potential mentors, collaborators, and employers outside their own institutions. I have benefited from these kinds of networks myself, and I now rely on them to help connect my own students and early-career colleagues with opportunities that can support their careers. These organizations are also important because they bring together scientists from different regions, countries, and sectors. Even when meetings are held in the United States, they often include researchers from around the world. This helps me understand how scientists in other places are studying similar questions about freshwater ecosystems, water quality, and environmental change. That broader perspective strengthens my own research and helps me place my work in a larger scientific context. Professional societies are increasingly important for building partnerships beyond academia as well. Private sponsors, agency representatives, nonprofit organizations, and industry partners attend these meetings, creating opportunities for applied collaborations. In my field, these connections are especially valuable because freshwater research is directly relevant to drinking water, fisheries, infrastructure, environmental management, and economic development. In the past several years, I have published papers that span freshwater ecology, water quality, wastewater infrastructure, urban streams, invasive species, tropical river systems, and global patterns in river ecosystem function. Publishing these papers has been essential to my career and research program. Peer-reviewed publications are how federally funded research becomes available to other scientists, students, managers, and decision-makers. They help establish the credibility of my research, support future funding opportunities, and create professional opportunities for the students and early-career scientists who contribute to the work. Sharing these results has also had broader impacts on my field. My publications contribute to understanding how rivers and streams respond to land-use change, wastewater infrastructure, drought, urbanization, invasive species, and other human activities. Some of this work has direct relevance for water quality, drinking water resources, fisheries, and infrastructure planning in Georgia, the southeastern United States, and globally. These papers also document the outcomes of public investment in science. The value of research is not only in collecting data, but in making those findings available so others can evaluate, build on, and apply them. Limiting the ability to publish or share federally supported science would reduce the return on that public investment and slow progress on issues that affect water resources, environmental management, and American communities. My publications and participation in scientific societies are essential for sharing federally supported research, building collaborations, mentoring students and early-career scientists, and allowing scientific findings to be evaluated, applied, and expanded by others. Limiting these activities would reduce the public value of research investments, weaken U.S. scientific competitiveness, and make it harder for scientists to address pressing environmental and water-resource challenges.