Comment from Sydney Jansen

I am a member of the scientific community who relies on federal funding to conduct research. I am writing to oppose proposed §200.340, §200.205, §200.333, §200.461, §200.454, and §200.43. If studies can be terminated whenever priorities shift, researchers can’t create plans, conduct research, or return with data, especially if that research requires extensive travel, because we would be effectively stuck without the funding to come back. Then, the taxpayer's money already spent produces nothing. Lastly, if these proposed changes are part of the "America First" agenda, this will eliminate any competitive edge we have against other countries. Did John F. Kennedy understand the physics required to pull us out of our orbit, or the requirements of our astronauts to mitigate physical harm from zero gravity? No, yet it was still important to fund. What came from the space programs was GPS and so many other wonderful byproducts that politicians and presidents had no direct say in their creation. Politicians are not trained scientists, and cannot determine what is important to research or not. I urge OMB to withdraw the discretionary termination provision in §200.340, restore the role of scientific peer review under §200.205, and not finalize this rule in its current form.”