I work for an association because I believe in the power of organized individuals. The line so often attributed to Margaret Mead says it plainly. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” That belief has been central to my career, and it is the reason I do this work. Science does not advance in isolation, and neither does the case for it. People who care about something, gathered and pointed in the same direction, are how things change.

My personal mission is to connect science and society. Currently, one of the key connections is through federal funding of science. Much of the basic research done in this country, along with much of the translational and applied work that follows from it, is funded by the federal government through grants. Those grants are governed by a set of rules called the uniform guidance, which is a set of guidelines that aren’t typically in the news, but are critical to the machinery that determines how and what science gets funded in the United States.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a significant change to that guidance. I am not going to walk through the details here because many smart people are publishing on this. What I will say is this. I believe the proposed changes would do serious harm to science. I think the word existential is fair. Additionally, I think it presents an existential threat to the small businesses that scientific societies are, mine included.

So I want you to know what I am doing.

I will be submitting a comment noting my specific concerns. My organization will be submitting a comment. And we are encouraging our members to submit their own. That last part is critical, and it is the reason I am writing this post instead of simply filing my own comment and moving on.

Individual comments count because OMB is required to review and respond to the substantive concerns raised during the public comment period. The volume and the range of those concerns become part of the formal record. One comment from a large association is one voice. Thousands of comments, from researchers, society members, and people who understand specific corners of this system better than me, are what we need. They surface the particular harms that a single organizational letter cannot. They build the record.

This is what I mean when I say I believe in organized individuals. Not a crowd, and not a form letter signed by many names, but many individuals writing about what they know related to a common concern. That is the thing associations exist to make possible, and it is the thing this moment calls for.

Many scientific societies are organizing their members to respond. If yours has put out a call, answer it. You don’t have to be an association member or even a scientist to comment.  You can even comment anonymously. Add your voice here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001 by July 13th. I am commenting. My organization is commenting. I hope you will, too.