Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Anonymous
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: A mental health counselor opposes the proposed information collection, arguing that it is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and would lead to poor healthcare outcomes and a loss of scientific innovation. The commenter advocates for diverse professional involvement in the grant review process rather than the involvement of political appointees.
I am a mental health counselor serving diverse populations who has worked with clients ages 4-100, clients from many cultural backgrounds, and clients coping with mental health and physical health diagnoses. I object to docket no. NSF-2026-OTR-0001, Information Collection 3145-0058 as it is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and would result in poor healthcare outcomes. The term it uses, “public burden,” is a lie. The public WANTS to be involved in grand decision-making as the grants pertain to their areas of expertise. And by “the public,” I mean a DIVERSITY of researched professionals across all areas of science, including public health and mental health. This diversity benefits from grant review time and production time, as does the diverse public when grants are reviewed by professionals in the field and not by power-hungry political appointees. This proposed rule would result in a loss of innovations across scientific fields, and eventually, a loss of human life. I request that the whole rule NOT be finalized.