Comment from Alexander Lara

I am a graduate student in the Chemistry Department at the University of California, San Diego. Before beginning my Ph.D., I completed a three-year postbaccalaureate fellowship at the National Institutes of Health (2022–2025) and was supported as an undergraduate at the University of California, Davis through the NIH-funded MARC program. I am currently supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF GRFP). Having trained within multiple federally funded research programs, I have seen firsthand how these investments develop scientists, advance discovery, and strengthen the United States' position as the global leader in scientific research. I am particularly concerned about the proposed changes to §200.202, §200.205, and §200.340. Section 200.202 would require federally funded programs to align with the priorities of the current administration. Scientific research often spans many years and multiple presidential administrations, making it inappropriate for funding decisions to depend on changing political priorities rather than scientific merit and public benefit. Section 200.205 would allow political appointees to participate in reviewing grant awards, reducing the role of independent scientific peer review by subject-matter experts. Finally, §200.340 expands the circumstances under which grants may be terminated, creating uncertainty for researchers who depend on stable funding to complete long-term projects. Together, these provisions shift the federal research enterprise away from expert-driven, merit-based decision making and toward a system that is more vulnerable to political influence. As someone whose scientific career has been built through federal investment, these changes are deeply concerning. Every stage of my training—from the MARC program, to my postbaccalaureate fellowship at the NIH, to my NSF Graduate Research Fellowship—was awarded through competitive, expert peer review. Those opportunities allowed me to develop the skills necessary to contribute to the scientific workforce. Research projects require years of planning, training, and collaboration. If funding decisions become contingent on changing political priorities, or if awarded grants can be terminated because those priorities change, researchers will be less willing to pursue ambitious, long-term projects. Early-career scientists will face greater uncertainty about whether they can complete the work they were funded to do, and institutions will struggle to recruit and retain talented researchers. Ultimately, these changes threaten the stability and independence that have made the United States the world leader in scientific innovation. I respectfully urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw these proposed changes to §§200.202, 200.205, and 200.340 and not finalize them. If reforms to the federal grants process are needed, they should be developed in partnership with the scientific community and should preserve the principles of independent peer review, scientific integrity, and stable support for research that serves the long-term interests of the American public.