Comment from Jasmine S

I am an early-career faculty member and aging researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. My career was made possible through an NIH/National Institute on Aging (NIA) T32 postdoctoral training grant, which provided the protected time, mentorship, and research training that allowed me to become an independent investigator. Today, my research focuses on improving care for people living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and supporting the family caregivers who navigate these illnesses every day, specifically in rural areas. Working directly with caregivers has shown me how urgently we need evidence-based solutions to improve care and support families facing some of life's most difficult decisions. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed revisions §200.205, §200.340, §200.432, and §200.461 because they would undermine the integrity, stability, and impact of federally funded research. I am deeply concerned that §200.205 provision (political appointee review of grants) would allow political appointees to override or play the deciding role in funding decisions after grant applications have already undergone rigorous peer review by scientific experts. As an early-career investigator, I have experienced firsthand the extensive, objective review process required to obtain federal funding. Preparing an NIH application requires months of work, and proposals are evaluated by experts based on scientific merit, innovation, significance, and feasibility-not political considerations. Allowing funding decisions to be influenced by changing political priorities or undefined standards threatens the integrity of the scientific enterprise and creates uncertainty for researchers at every career stage. Research funding should remain grounded in independent, merit-based scientific review. I urge OMB to withdraw this provision. I am concerned that §200.340 provision (grant termination) would allow agencies to terminate awarded research grants if political priorities change. Aging research requires sustained investment over many years. My research focuses on improving care for people living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and supporting the family caregivers who care for them. This work depends on earning the trust of families, many from rural communities, who generously share their time and deeply personal experiences in the hope that future families will receive better care. Abruptly terminating grants would not only waste taxpayer investments that have already been made, but it would also break trust with research participants, interrupt ongoing studies, and delay improvements in care for millions of older adults and their families. Stable funding is essential for conducting rigorous, ethical research. I urge OMB to withdraw this provision. I am concerned that §200.432 provision (conference attendance pre-approval) would create unnecessary barriers to disseminating federally funded research. Scientific conferences provide essential opportunities to present findings, receive critical feedback, establish collaborations, and accelerate the translation of research into clinical practice. As an early-career investigator, these meetings have been instrumental in helping me refine my work, build collaborations, and learn from leaders in aging and dementia research. Requiring additional pre-approval could delay or limit participation, slowing scientific progress and reducing the return on the federal government's investment in research. I urge OMB to withdraw this provision. I also oppose the §200.461 proposed restrictions on publication costs. Publishing research findings in peer-reviewed journals is essential to ensuring that federally funded discoveries reach clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and the public. My goal as a researcher is not simply to generate knowledge, but to improve the care that people living with dementia and their families receive. That can only happen if research findings are shared widely and without unnecessary barriers. Limiting researchers' ability to use grant funds for publication would create significant obstacles, particularly for early-career investigators with limited discretionary resources, and would undermine longstanding federal efforts to make taxpayer-funded research publicly accessible. I urge OMB to withdraw this provision. For the health and well-being of all, I urge OMB to withdraw provisions §200.205, §200.340, §200.432, and §200.461.