Comment from Anonymous

I am a 3rd year PhD candidate at Boston University who has been supported by grants from the NIH and NSF throughout my graduate career. Grant funding from federal institutions has been crucial to my professional development as a scientist, as it has allowed me to explore a wide range of research topics and connected me with colleagues who have shaped the quality of my work through their feedback. Funding from an NIH T31 training grant supported my first-year rotations in my graduate program, allowing me to research sex-based differences in the mouse liver, fungi in the soil microbiome, AI models for predicting protein binding to DNA, individual differences in fruit fly immunity, and herpesvirus interactions with host DNA. Funding from an NSF R01 grant supports my current research in fruit fly immunity, where I study how non-coding DNA interacts with proteins and genes to coordinate the progression of the immune response. As a scientist who has had the opportunity to work across disciplines that are both directly and indirectly applicable to Americans’ health, I strongly believe that the consequences of the OMB’s Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance is counterintuitive to goals outlined in the document, will set back science progress in the United States, and will also directly impact my future as a graduate student and scientist. Specifically, Section 200.205 (Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals) will decrease the quality of scientific work published in this country which will directly limit the future career opportunities of young scientists like me. I find Section 200.205 particularly concerning due to the lack of clear definitions of “Gold Standard Science” and which projects will be approved by the current administration without requiring peer review. Based on the current administration's 2027 R&D budget priorities, the health of American citizens and emerging technologies like AI are top priorities for research funding. However, the direct applicability of scientific discoveries (especially in basic biology) to national priorities is often not obvious to non-scientists. For example, fruit fly locomotion research has historically informed AI flight research, while research in fruit fly immunity has applications in understanding allergy and autoimmunity. While scientists studying questions like these could anticipate some of these applications in their grant submissions, the exact applications of basic biology research are often not known until many years down the line. For example, scientists studying fundamental principles that inform AI models today may never have anticipated the level of technological advancement their discoveries could lead to. Science progress in this country is a long game, and eliminating funding for projects that are not immediately applicable to administration priorities could have devastating consequences for future discoveries that will rely on science done today. This will ultimately lead to less jobs for aspiring scientists like myself, which could lead to devastating economic consequences. Although the current system of peer review is not perfect and may still let promising projects slip through the cracks, prioritizing politics over scientific merit is counterintuitive to improving the quality of science in this country. Long-term investments in the basic sciences have been crucial to establishing the United States as a leader in science, and quality work relies on input from fellow scientists. Therefore, I strongly advise against the implementation OMB-2026-0034.