Comment from Kenneth Poss
Kenneth PossOpposeAcademic
Summary: A scientist with 23 years of experience at major US universities opposes Section 200.205 of the proposed regulation. They argue that allowing political appointees to outweigh peer review will undermine the effectiveness of the current system and harm the quality of scientific research funding.
I am a scientist who has run research programs at major US universities for the past 23 years, where we have made foundational discoveries in how and why tissue regeneration occurs. I write to oppose Section 200.205, which will allow political appointees to carry more weight than peer review in awarding of research funding. I've spent hundreds of hours reviewing grants and serving on panels for NIH, and I can tell you that the process is highly competitive and highly effective. Truly expert reviewers consider the importance and impact of the science as well as the quality in their scoring and discussions, and there is no question that the best science comes to the top through this process. We cannot afford to change to a system where a politically appointment non-expert determines what is funded and where science should head. That is not how science works and has worked. It takes many years of experience in scientific research to judge whether exploratory or applied science has a likelihood of reaching its goals of improving human knowledge and health. The proposed policy Section 200.205 would be destructive and it should be eliminated in its entirety.