Without deference to peer review, Dr. Rubin said, “science could become a pork-barrel project where you give money to people because of who they are or where they are, rather than the quality of what they do.”

In an interview, Elizabeth Ginexi, a former N.I.H. program officer of 22 years who also commented on the proposal, cited dramatic drops in heart disease and cancer mortality as some of the biggest payoffs of peer-reviewed, N.I.H.-funded research into blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking and immunotherapies.

James Rozzelle, a scientist, wrote that he was concerned the proposal, which would also allow appointees to terminate grants at any time, could affect a grant he was involved in to develop a vaccine to prevent a sexually transmitted disease. Three years in, the group has identified a promising candidate.

The proposed provision might have prevented our funding from being awarded or could terminate it now.
— Comment from James Rozzelle

Dr. Douglas Hawkins, a pediatric oncologist who chairs the Children’s Oncology Group, a research network that encouraged its members to comment, said in an interview that stopping grants mid-cycle would be wasteful and potentially harm patients.

“Imagine your child has cancer, and they’re being treated and they’ve improved, and they’re getting treatment that may only be available through a clinical trial,” he said. “And then the treatment stops.” (Dr. Hawkins spoke in his personal capacity.)

Dr. Hawkins added that proposed limitations on some foreign collaboration could harm pediatric and rare disease studies, which rely on patients and scientists from other countries to accrue the volume needed and to do the best research.

The Denver Research Institute, a nonprofit that supports studies involving veterans, objected to provisions that would ban federal funding of research into “disparate impact” by race or sex and research on diversity, equity and inclusion.

Veterans’ research routinely examines critical health priorities, including P.T.S.D., suicide prevention, women’s health, aging, and health disparities, and often requires analysis of demographic factors and targeted recruitment to ensure scientifically valid and representative results.

— Comment from Denver Research Institute

Jen Peterson, a researcher at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who studies healthy aging and well-being in older adults in rural Alaska, also objected to those provisions.

Understanding how social, cultural, and structural factors shape health outcomes in these communities is not a political position. It is responsible science. Prohibiting this kind of inquiry does not make the disparities go away. It just means they go unstudied.
— Comment from Jen Peterson