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 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.

Sheila Kannappan, an astrophysicist, opposes the proposed NSF rule change because it aligns with controversial and premature OMB revisions. She argues that these changes could lead to the arbitrary termination of grants, the prioritization of political agendas over peer review, and the restriction of international scientific collaboration and communication.

The commenter opposes the NSF's proposal to align its grantmaking rules with OMB's Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. They argue that the proposal represents a gross overreach of authority that threatens scientific independence, academic freedom, and evidence-based decision-making.

A private citizen opposes the NSF's proposal to adopt OMB rule changes regarding federal financial assistance. The commenter argues that the changes would allow political appointees to influence scientific funding, harm international collaborations, and ultimately damage US scientific capabilities and economic interests.

A university professor opposes the updated NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, arguing that it allows political appointees to oversee grant funding and undermines the peer review process. The commenter contends that the rule compromises scientific rigor, restricts international collaboration, and infringes upon academic freedom.

The commenter, a professional with a background in international arbitration, labor law, and public health, opposes the proposed regulations and NSF alignment. They argue that the proposal subjects scientific grants to political oversight, restricts international collaboration, and imposes burdensome regulations that stifle academic freedom and evidence-based research.

The commenter opposes the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's information guidance, arguing that independent scientific research is critical for addressing global challenges like climate change. They emphasize that research should remain independent of politics to serve national interests.

The commenter opposes the NSF's proposal to align grantmaking rules with OMB regulations, arguing that it constitutes a gross overreach of authority. They claim the proposal threatens scientific independence, academic freedom, and evidence-based decision-making by imposing sweeping regulatory controls on higher education institutions.