Comment from Julian Tyson

I am a recently retired faculty member of the Chemistry Department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I relocated from a faculty position in the UK in 1989 to take advantage of the better funding opportunities, and was able to pursue a successful career with support mainly from NSF, but also from NOAA and a number industrial collaborations (one of which was facilitated by an NSF grant). Almost all of my 30 doctoral students entered employment in the US and my external funding also supported independent studies by nearly 100 undergraduates, several of whom were recipients of NSF funding for summer research experiences that lead to (successful) application to graduate school. I urge OMB to reconsider the changes to the merit review process [200.205] and ensure that proposals continue to be evaluated primarily on technical merit rather than reviewed by political appointees. The peer review process is crucial for maintaining scientific integrity and ensuring that federally funded research can benefit society in general. The proposed rule would place an enormous burden on political appointees without the qualified expertise to evaluate technical proposals, thus slowing down the review process. I also adamantly oppose changes to the grant termination provisions [200.340] that would allow agencies to terminate active grants if they do not advance what the political appointees consider to be the national interest.