Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Science Foundation Proposal/Award Information Guidance on Financial Assistance

The Stand Up for Science Foundation opposes the proposed National Science Foundation Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA), arguing that it imposes sweeping regulatory controls and significant economic burdens on institutions of higher education without sufficient statutory authority. They request the withdrawal of the proposal until a thorough regulatory impact analysis is conducted and the agency clarifies how it will navigate various executive orders and OMB regulations.

The American Anthropological Association supports the National Science Foundation's transition to the Guidance on Financial Assistance but requests a detailed "crosswalk" comparison between the old and new policies to ensure transparency. They also recommend that the new guidance specifically recognize the unique data stewardship needs of anthropological research, support community-based partnerships, and include discipline-inclusive examples.

The commenter provides a lengthy, rambling list of grievances including climate change denial, criticisms of federal spending, and various legal complaints against judges and government agencies. The comment does not take a specific position on the proposed National Science Foundation information collection guidance.

An individual is opposing the proposed updates to the National Science Foundation's grantmaking rules, arguing that they will lead to political interference in independent science and threaten public health. The commenter expresses concern that the proposal aligns with restrictive OMB regulations regarding international collaboration and publication.

The commenter opposes the National Science Foundation's alignment with the proposed OMB Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. They argue that the new rules allow for political interference in scientific research and call for the rejection of the proposed regulation to protect independent science.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF policy change, arguing that it prioritizes specific new programs and increased limits for certain proposal types at the expense of core basic research funding. They also criticize the document for being rushed and for failing to explain the TRUST framework.

A former senior government official and research scientist opposes the proposed changes, arguing that the guidance is based on non-final OMB rules and will lead to the politicization of award decisions. The commenter contends that these changes will create bureaucratic bottlenecks, increase costs for submitters, and damage the quality of scientific research and international competitiveness.

The commenter, identifying as a K-12 educator, opposes the proposed changes to the NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance. They argue that the changes politicize scientific research, threaten international collaboration, and restrict funding for travel and publications, which they believe will harm scientific innovation and the research community.