Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Martin Carroll
AnonymousOpposeAcademic
Summary: A university professor and NIH-funded laboratory head opposes the proposed NSF changes, arguing that they increase administrative burdens and politicize the peer review process. The commenter asserts that these changes will demoralize reviewers and grantees, potentially harming U.S. scientific leadership.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to express my strong disappointment at the recent NSF proposed changes to grant review as posted in the Federal Register (FR Doc # 2026-12725). This proposal adds administrative burden to grant review and down plays the critical importance of peer review in deciding which scientists are funded in the United States. Peer review based funding has allowed the US to excel in scientific research for decades leading to our leadership in biomedical science. As a University professor running a NIH funded laboratory who has reviewed for the NIH and other international agencies, I can tell you that this rule will demoralized both grant reviewers and potential grantee's as it makes the scientific review process a political tool and not a science driven enterprise. Stop this madness or US research will shrivel and die.