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

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.

Erik Dienemann, a retired senior director at Merck & Co., Inc., opposes the NSF's proposal to align grantmaking rules with OMB's Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. He argues that the proposal constitutes a gross overreach of authority that threatens scientific independence, academic freedom, and evidence-based decision-making.

A healthcare professional (clinician and pharmacist) opposes the proposed guidance, arguing that it imposes excessive regulatory control over academic freedom and scientific research. The commenter claims the proposal will negatively impact independent science and public health by aligning grantmaking rules with restrictive federal financial regulations.

The commenter opposes the NSF proposal, arguing that it aligns grantmaking rules with OMB regulations in a way that imposes sweeping regulatory control over higher education. They claim the action threatens scientific independence, academic freedom, and public health by imposing restrictive requirements on grants and research.

The commenter opposes the proposal, arguing that it could lead to the politicization of science and undermine independent research and international collaboration. They express concern that the guidance could allow political appointees to influence funding decisions, potentially violating constitutional rights.

The commenter opposes the inclusion of language in the GFA that grants Tribes veto power over NSF proposals they deem to have an adverse impact. They argue that this requirement creates an unfunded administrative burden on Tribes and creates practical hurdles for researchers, while also contradicting certain executive policies.