Comment from Ethan Baker

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a PhD Candidate at Boston University studying theoretical particle physics and cosmology, trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, and 200.450 that would restrict typical professional expenses, curtail the communication of scientific results, and place excessive scrutiny on the activities of scientists. Professional societies allow scientists to network, build connections, and further their research. Virtually all science is done in collaboration with others, and professional societies are crucial to enabling these collaborations. For example, I have met collaborators at the American Physical Society sponsored meetings, which have provided new professional opportunities and enhanced my research. It is important to have flexibility in conferences to attend because of the nature of research. Our goals and interests shift rapidly based on new developments in the field and can change according to how the research process progresses. Also, some conferences are organized quickly in response to changing developments in the field. If we don't have flexibility to attend the most relevant conferences and the proposed restrictions in Section 200.432 are enacted, the impact of our research will suffer greatly. For example, the recently organized Physics and AI conference at Stanford University was organized with relatively short notice because of the rapidly changing impact of AI on physics. Attending this conference exposed me to new ideas and allowed me to showcase my work. The most important part of science is communicating results. If we can't easily read others work, then it is impossible to come up with new ideas or to make substantial advancement in our work. In my own work, I have had new ideas and come up with new methods in response to recently published papers. If scientists can't access this work or have new restrictions like Section 200.454 proposes, the productivity of Americans will suffer. Also, we need to communicate our work to the world. If it is not possible to publish work, then other Americans and international scientists cannot build upon it and further the scientific endeavor. I have published 2 papers in my graduate career and am currently publishing 4 more. By publishing my work, I have had opportunities to attend graduate school and have contributed to several different fields. One paper was particularly impactful and spurred a discussion about the validity of particular methods, strengthening the field overall. If I hadn't been able to communicate these results, science overall would suffer, as would my own career. Professional activities are crucial to building a strong career in and out of science. In order to maintain the US's leading position in science, we need to communicate results and engage with other professionals. If this rule is enacted, the US will fall behind as a scientific leader.