Comment from Seth Miller

I am a Cornell University PhD graduate currently working in the development of gene therapy medicines. [200.205] I am concerned about allowing political appointees to evaluate grant proposals before peer review. Scientific funding decisions should be based primarily on technical merit and expert evaluation. Prioritizing policy alignment over scientific excellence risks discouraging innovative research and weakening the integrity of the review process. [200.340] I oppose provisions that would expand agency authority to terminate or suspend active grants based on changing agency priorities. Biomedical research programs often require years of sustained investment, and funding uncertainty makes it harder to retain skilled scientists and complete long-term projects. My current work in gene therapy traces its origins to research that was initially supported through federal funding and ultimately helped launch a spinout from Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. This is a tangible example of how federally funded research can lead to scientific innovation, new therapies, and economic growth. Policies that reduce funding stability or weaken merit-based review could make similar success stories less likely in the future. [200.432, 454, 461] Conferences, professional societies, and peer-reviewed publications are essential for sharing scientific results and advancing medical research. Additional approval requirements would create unnecessary administrative burdens and slow scientific progress.