Comment from J B

I am involved in several research initiatives at a prominent U.S. university and am grateful to generally benefit from key scientific advances led by colleagues and faculty across U.S. institutions of higher education. As such, I am strongly opposed to the proposed OMB revisions. Just a few of my key concerns with the proposed revisions include: -Replacing objective peer reviewers who have been trained in scientific methods with political appointees risks significantly undermining the key service of reviewers, and will thus likely limit rigor in future research. -U.S. industry and citizenry alike have benefited from government investment into scientific research, to which countless researchers from across the world have contributed. Prohibiting foreign collaborations would limit the value of key partnerships that have been built over decades and serve us all. -The loss of a connection between researchers and their congressional representatives in the form of program officers acting as unbiased civil servants. -The possibility of mid-project grant terminations will inhibit innovation. Researchers will feel limited in taking risks and developing new tools/approaches/research streams if there is a chance that work won’t have the opportunity to come to fruition. For the past 80 years, the United States has been a leader in scientific discovery in large part owing to government investment in the best science, as determined by independent experts rather than elected politicians. Peer review, open competition, and academic freedom have been the pillars of that system. I sincerely worry that these proposed revisions would harm the national interest, not to mention the day-to-day lives of U.S. Americans and people around the globe. I strongly urge these revisions to be withdrawn.