Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

The commenter, writing in a personal capacity, opposes the proposed rule because it threatens the integrity of the scientific process by weakening peer review and allowing for arbitrary grant terminations. They argue that the changes will politicize research, restrict international collaboration, and ultimately harm U.S. competitiveness and public safety.

The commenter, an executive director of a small healthcare nonprofit, opposes the proposed rule because it would restrict access to medically necessary transition-related health care and stifle scientific research. They argue the rule promotes viewpoint discrimination, undermines scientific rigor, and creates barriers to sharing federally funded research.

A clinical psychologist at Yale/Yale-New Haven Hospital opposes specific sections of the OMB action, arguing that they downgrade the importance of peer review and hinder international research collaboration. The commenter asserts that these provisions will impede scientific progress and limit the accessibility of research findings.