Comment from Jen Poynter
Jen PoynterOpposeAcademic
Summary: Jen Poynter, a professor at the University of Minnesota, opposes the proposed revisions to federal grant review processes. She argues that removing peer review in favor of political priorities will decrease the quality of research and that the threat of grant termination will make it difficult to recruit talented scientists.
[200.205, 200.340]
To Whom it May Concern:
My name is Jen Poynter, and I am a professor in epidemiology researching pediatric cancer at the University of Minnesota.
I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies' ability to identify and fund impactful research.
Peer review is an essential component of the scientific process and remains a reason that the United States leads the world in cancer research. Scientific proposals require specialized expertise to understand the context and potential impact of the work, and most political appointees without a scientific background are not able to provide that level of expertise. Removing peer review and allowing political priorities to guide science will lead to lower quality research output.
The uncertainty associated with having grants terminated at any time will lead to difficulties in finding talented staff to work on research projects. The most talented young scientists will pursue alternate careers with more stability.