Comment from Geoff Goodman
Geoff GoodmanOpposeAcademic
Summary: Dr. Geoff Goodman, a clinical psychology researcher at Emory University, opposes Section 200.205 of the Proposed Rule. He argues that allowing political appointees to evaluate research instead of a peer-review process undermines scientific merit and places the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
My name is Geoff Goodman, Ph.D., and I am a clinical psychology researcher at Emory University in Atlanta, GA. My research includes the study of psychotherapy process and outcome research that targets interventions for children, adolescents, and adults. I oppose Section 200.205 of the Proposed Rule. Political appointees do not have the scientific expertise to evaluate peer-reviewed research; thus, they do not have the knowledge or experience to override the peer-reviewed process. This shift to government bureaucrats and political appointees determining the value of research based on political expediency rather than scientific merit would adversely affect scientific discoveries and place the US at a clear disadvantage to other competitive countries such as China, India, and Russia. US citizens deserve a robust peer-review system of research that privileges rigorous, unbiased scientific inquiry and prioritizes their emotional well-being above political or commercial interests.
Geoff Goodman, Ph.D.