Comment from Andrew Naslund

My name is Andrew Naslund, and I work in the marine sciences to advance our understanding of the oceans in support of scientific discovery, national security, and informed decision-making. I am deeply concerned that the proposed OMB rules introducing political appointee oversight into the federal scientific grant approval process would undermine one of the foundations of American scientific leadership: rigorous, independent peer review. The existing peer review system is merit-based and designed to ensure that federal research funding supports the strongest ideas, regardless of political considerations. Scientific progress depends on long-term investment and inquiry that often extends beyond the priorities of any single administration or political cycle. Allowing political considerations to influence the selection or continuation of research projects risks weakening the United States’ ability to maintain its global leadership in science and technology. The proposed discretionary termination provisions are particularly concerning. Scientific research often requires years of sustained effort before results can be realized, and the ability to arbitrarily terminate grants introduces uncertainty that could discourage innovation and prevent important discoveries from reaching completion. The strength of American science has historically been built on a commitment to excellence, open inquiry, and independent evaluation. Weakening these principles would not only harm the scientific community but could also diminish our nation’s technological competitiveness and strategic advantage. I urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw these proposed changes and preserve a grant review system based on scientific merit, transparency, and independent peer evaluation.