Comment from Mark Levine
Mark LevineOpposeAcademic
Summary: A university history professor opposes the proposed regulation, arguing that it would undermine the peer-review process and the ability of researchers to attend workshops and share knowledge. The commenter asserts that these practices are essential to the integrity of scientific research and that the proposed changes are dangerous.
I am a professor of history at the University of California for over 25 years and have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in government grants in the nes, Fulbright and other institutions. the idea that peer review for grants should be scrapped is simply unimaginable and shows a complete ignorance of how science works. similarly the idea that grant funding shouldn't be used to attend comfort to some workshops and publish cuts to the heart of scientific research which is based on regular exchanges of ideas with peers mind to ensure knowledge is shared, critiqued and vetted. this is simply the most ridiculous and dangerous regulation change proposed in my 60-year lifetime.