Comment on OMB-2026-0034-0001

OMB-2026-0034OMB-2026-0034 On behalf of the Kentucky Academy of Science: The process of scientific research and exploration needs to be conducted freely and insulated from political interference. That history is responsible for the United States becoming a global leader in STEM and developing breakthroughs in basic science, technology, engineering and medicine. This proposal dismantles open competition, peer review and institutional autonomy. It is political interference in the scientific process and it is unacceptable. Specifically: (§200.205(d)) Peer Review is a critical element of ensuring that the scientific progress has integrity and peer review needs to be retained. (§200.205) "Gold Standard Science" is undefined and is thus not a useful rubric on which to judge scientific research proposals or findings. (§200.340) Threatening to terminate research in progress only ensures waste of resources and severe disruption to laboratories, institutions and their personnel. Researchers hire staff based on a commitment that the grant will be fulfilled throughout its term. (§200.300) The reference to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Gender research and other related topics as a basis for withholding research funds is not scientifically justifiable. (§200.220) Disrupting international partnerships broadly, threatens the basis of American science which is elevated and enhanced because of our international relationships and collaborations. Science is an international cooperative enterprise. (§200.202(e)) Disrupting international partnerships broadly, threatens the basis of American science which is elevated and enhanced because of our international relationships and collaborations. Science is an international cooperative enterprise. (§200.206) The vague language in this section could be used to exclude researchers affiliated with civil rights, environmental, or public health advocacy organizations, which would represent a significant detriment to the scientific community (§200.303) This requirement for e-verify poses untenable and unnecessary administrative burdens on institutions, especially those employing international scientists who choose to come to the United States to advance our scientific enterprises. (§200.432) Requiring agency approval for participation and contribution in a scientific gathering imposes absurd restrictions on researchers who need to be free to advance their research in the scientific communities in which they participate and collaborate. (§200.454)Similarly, requiring agency approval for participation and contribution in a scientific organization imposes absurd restrictions on researchers who need to be free to advance their research in the scientific communities in which they participate and collaborate. (§200.461) This conflicts with prior requirements that publicly funded research findings be freely available. Restricting publication suppresses the public record of research. (§200.421)Restricting communications suppresses the public record of research. (§200.450) We object to this as it could prevent researchers from speaking publicly and sharing their knowledge on politically sensitive topics This rule must be rejected to protect scientific integrity in the United States. Thank you.