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

The commenter opposes the National Science Foundation's proposal to update its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. They argue that the changes align with efforts to politicize research funding, threaten scientific independence, and impose unnecessary regulatory control over higher education institutions.

A university professor shares a personal history of receiving NSF support throughout their career as a student, postdoc, and researcher. They argue that the NSF is essential to national scientific standing and should receive more funding rather than cuts.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF guidance, arguing that it imposes excessive regulatory control, economic impacts, and threats to academic freedom and independent science. They characterize the information collection as a gross overreach of the agency's authority.

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.

The commenter opposes the proposed changes to the project review process for grants, arguing that it will harm the U.S. economy and undermine scientific innovation. They advocate for maintaining impartial blind reviews of proposals and urge the agency to rescind the new rules.

The commenter opposes the proposed changes to the NSF grant review mechanisms, arguing that they prioritize personal opinion and political bias over scientific merit. They claim these changes would undermine the U.S. research system, harm the economy, and stifle future scientific discoveries.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF information collection, arguing that it imposes excessive institutional requirements and economic impacts on grantees. They characterize the action as a regulatory overreach that threatens scientific independence and academic freedom.