Comment from Name Withheld

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor that studies the immune system and its role in cancer and autoimmunity. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, and 200.450 that would restrict typical professional expenses, curtail the communication of scientific results, and place excessive scrutiny on the activities of scientists. Professional societies and associations are a major way we communicate and share ideas. Additionally, professional societies maintain journals whose low (or zero) publication costs help keep in check the insane costs of for-profit major publishing companies like Springer/Nature. As I wrote, this is how we communicate and share ideas. Over the course of a project, new insights and impacts always emerge. Having the flexibility to attend a conference that was not planned at the time a grant was developed is very important for maintaining the ability to actually do real science. Publishing in journals is how science is communicated to other scientists - this is how we learn about results and act on them to create new ones. Creating a barrier to scientific communication can only serve to slow down or eliminate advances. It also serves to communicate to the public. With public investment, the public deserves to know what scientists are doing and what impacts are being made. I have published over 100 papers that together have been cited thousands of times, with the work used by others to develop new therapies. Putting a barrier in front of this type of action can only serve to reduce or eliminate it.