Comment from Grace Semaan
Grace SemaanOpposeAcademic
Summary: Grace Semaan, a graduate student at Michigan State University, opposes the proposed regulation because it would jeopardize the federal grants and fellowships she relies on for her PhD. She argues that the ability to terminate active grants at any time creates uncertainty, risks the quality of American science, and could lead to the outsourcing of research to other countries.
Hello, my name is Grace Semaan and I am a 3rd year graduate student at Michigan State University studying microbiology and chemistry. I am familiar with many federal funding agencies such as NSF, NIH, USDA, and more. These agencies have provided me with fellowships, training programs, and grants (to my lab) to fund my thesis work. By implementing this new OMB proposal, many of these funding sources I currently rely on to complete my degree would be non-existent, or open to termination at any time. Without the fellowships, scholarships, and grants that I have been awarded for my thesis work, I would not be able to afford to get my PhD.
As someone who believes science is a space for everyone, and that it should be accessible to all, this is incredibly discouraging to see. For example, section [200.340] states that active and awarded grants can be terminated at the discretion of the federal agency. This is an unprecedented abuse of power when American science relies on the availability of funding. To create such a system with so much uncertainty would not only force American scientists to complete their studies in other countries with more stable conditions, it would also encourage overproduction of non-reproducible, responsible, or ethical science. When scientists feel rushed to get their data because they don't know when their funding will be cut, mistakes are made; incorrect conclusions are drawn; and we set knowledge back by decades.
Additionally, when scientists feel uncertain about future funding sources, they pack up their lab and outsource it to a different country. This not only greatly impacts the American economy, but it reduces our ability to train rigorous scientists on our own soil. This has already been seen with research involving clinical trials where funding was previously cut. Many trials, and the labs associated with them, moved their science to countries with more money or less government restriction; giving the rights of that developing science to the country it is now being researched in. I strongly urge for this proposal to be denied, if not for the outrageous abuse of power, then at least for the immediate decline in American excellency and leadership within STEMM (science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine).