Comment from James Brooks
James BrooksOpposeAcademic
Summary: A professor of Urology opposes the proposed rule changes, arguing that political appointees should not have a role in judging research funding decisions. The commenter contends that peer review is the most effective system for selecting science and that political involvement could disrupt critical research in fields like reproductive biology and cancer.
I vehemently oppose the proposed rule changes to how grants are administrated and funded. I am a professor of Urology who has spent his career in biomedical science research and patient care. Political appointees should have no role in judging research funding decisions. Peer review has proven to be an excellent system for picking the best science, and the current processes have led to longstanding leadership by the USA in scientific research. Political appointees who judge research can fund or defund based on their personal beliefs, and are subject to whomever is in power. This could lead to tremendous disruptions in fields that could fall under the umbrella of hot button issues - such as reproductive biology, the influence of race and ethnicity on health outcomes, and many others. There is a ripple effect from this, in that disruption in one fields delays progress in others. For example, cancer research (my field) has progressed tremendously by recognizing important roles for genes an pathways discovered as important in reproduction, that are later found to be important in cancer growth and metastasis.
Do not allow this rule change to go through.