Comment from Jennifer Brandon

My name is Dr. Jennifer Brandon. I have my PhD in biological oceanography from one of the top research institutions in the world, here in California. We may be the top oceanography program in the entire world. We could not have that title or have discovered the groundbreaking research we have without peer-reviewed science, international collaboration, the ability to disseminate our science to our peers and colleagues at conferences and in journals, and the ability to talk freely to journalists and the public about our science. All of that is at risk with this new bill. It MUST be stopped. My PhD focus was on microplastics pollution. I was very early on in the research discipline of microplastics pollution. Some of my work received international press attention, and was covered by news outlets from the BBC to NPR to Christian talk radio to the New Yorker. If I had not been able to publicly communicate that science, it would not only have been devastating to me and my career, but to the entire discipline of microplastics pollution. I have been part of this field of study as we have quickly moved from seeing microplastics as solely an ocean pollution issue to a human health issue, currently being funded and investigated by HHS. This change to finding microplastics everywhere and seeing them as an environmental and human health toxin would not have happened if our research was not communicated to the public or able to be shared at conferences. It is essential that our work can be communicated and disseminated to the public, so they know the findings of our tax-payer funded research, and they have full confidence in what we are finding and learning. I chose to pay to have some of my research be in open access journals instead of behind a paywall, because I knew my results were of such high public interest. Those open access fees are incredibly expensive, and they would be absolutely prohibitive under this new OMB regulation where government fees could not fund any publication fees. Our research is paid for by taxpayers, and it is intended to be published and disseminated and communicated to the taxpayers, and that cannot change. I am an oceanographer, and the ocean is inherently international. We collaborate with colleagues all over the world because the ocean touches many countries' borders. To study the Gulf Stream is to study the US East Coast and Europe at one time. To limit international collaboration is to fundamentally not understand the scientific process or how we share resources, ship time, and knowledge. This is inherently xenophobic for no reason, when the ocean, the atmosphere, rivers, and many animals cross international borders all the time. Lastly, I would like to say that peer-reviewed science is essential. It is not a process of favoritism, but rather a process that brings out the best in our fellow scientists, and only wants the best impartial facts to come to the surface. My first paper was rejected in the peer-review process because there was a flaw in my statistics that I missed. I was able to fix it and resubmit the new and improved paper. Having only proposals and papers that are politically preferred be approved will forever tarnish the scientific process, where impartial facts and statistics and the scientific method are meant to rise to the top, as best as they can. We cannot allow this great nation, the leader in science and technology, to allow its politicians to set its scientific agendas and its scientists to be so hamstrung by this regulation. We need to allow the scientific process to continue unencumbered by political censorship and allow peer-reviewed science to continue as an independent process if we hope to stay as a world leader and if we hope to continue to learn the truth about this amazing planet we call home.