Comment from Anon Anon
Anon AnonOpposeAcademic
Summary: A researcher opposes the proposed regulation, arguing that increased agency discretion in funding decisions will lead to politicalization and undermine scientific progress. They also argue that changes to allowable and indirect costs will increase administrative burdens and restrict the sharing of knowledge and professional collaboration.
I am a researcher interested in promoting the health and well-being of all Americans. I strongly oppose the proposed expansion to the agency discretion in funding decisions (§200.202, §200.204, §200.25, and §200.206). Peer review is the bedrock of scientific investigation, and increased politicalization of the funding process will undermine scientific progress. We need transparency to produce high quality research, and this expansion of agency discretion moves our scientific enterprise in the wrong direction. I also oppose the proposed changes to allowable, unallowable, and indirect costs (§200.205, §200.432, §200.454, and §200.461). Disallowing publication costs and subscription costs will severely limit the sharing of knowledge created by federally funded research. These changes to allowable, unallowable, and indirect costs will increase administrative burden and direct time and energy away from life saving research. In addition, the proposed changes would restrict professional collaborations among researchers and lead to lower quality research output. Simply put, scientific research saves lives. The United States has always been a leader in funding for scientific research and is known for the highest quality scientific output. The proposed changes lead us down the wrong path and deprioritize the health and well-being of all Americans.