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

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.

A constituent is expressing opposition to the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's grant approval process. The commenter argues that the proposal gives too much weight to political considerations over independent peer review and expresses concern about the lack of transparency in the proposal's drafting.

The commenter opposes the National Science Foundation's decision to update its Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide to align with a proposed OMB Regulation. They argue that the proposed regulation is "wrong-headed," will harm US scientific competitiveness, and lacks the necessary unbiased vetting system.

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 proposal, arguing that it aligns with a previous OMB rule they believe politicizes scientific decision-making and undermines the expertise of professionals. They characterize the timing of the proposal as "bad faith."

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF guidance, arguing that it is premature, creates excessive regulatory controls over higher education institutions, and imposes significant financial burdens on grant recipients.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF guidance, arguing that it is premature, creates excessive regulatory controls over higher education institutions, and imposes significant financial burdens on grant recipients.