Comment from Pablo Gonzalez

As a chemistry professor at a small undergraduate institution, I am concerned that several provisions in the proposed revisions could unintentionally weaken the scientific enterprise, reduce opportunities for student researchers, and create uncertainty for institutions that depend on federal support to build research capacity. I am particularly concerned about provisions that would allow grant proposals to be evaluated for policy alignment before undergoing scientific peer review. The strength of the U.S. research system has long rested on the principle that scientific merit, technical feasibility, innovation, and potential impact are evaluated by qualified subject-matter experts. While agencies should certainly establish funding priorities, scientific review should remain the primary mechanism for determining research quality and competitiveness. I am also concerned about provisions that would allow active awards to be terminated or suspended based on evolving agency priorities or broad interpretations of national interests. Research projects often require years of planning, student training, equipment acquisition, data collection, and collaboration among institutions. Increased uncertainty regarding the continuity of awarded projects could discourage long-term research efforts and limit opportunities for undergraduate participation in research. In addition, requiring prior approval for conference attendance, professional society memberships, and publication-related expenses could create additional administrative barriers to the dissemination of scientific knowledge. Conferences and professional organizations play a critical role in training students, fostering collaborations, sharing discoveries, and maintaining professional standards across scientific disciplines. At smaller institutions, federally supported research often provides undergraduate students with their first exposure to scientific inquiry and helps prepare future physicians, healthcare professionals, educators, and researchers. Policies that reduce transparency, increase uncertainty, or limit scholarly engagement may disproportionately affect institutions that are working to expand research opportunities despite limited resources. I respectfully encourage OMB to preserve the principles of peer review, research independence, transparency, and scientific communication that have contributed to the success of the United States research enterprise for decades.