Comment from Donald Marolf

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a senior Professor in gravitational physics. 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. I am cery concerned about the potential impact of the proposed rule change on the ability of U.S. researchers to participate in scienfic conferences. In my experience, scientific conferences are a critical venue for the exchange of ideas, and they are the primary mechanism for understanding what research is taking place in other parts of the world. The ability to speak directly to colleagues, rather than to just read papers and to communicate over email, is a primary driver of research. To give a particular example, last summer I attended a two-week workshop in Brazil. Discussions at that conference led directly to 3 of my current 6 research projects and, perhaps more importantly, led me to rule out working on another collection of 3 projects. In contrast, it would have taken me months to make those decisions on my own. Participation in such conferences is especially critical for developing the careers of young scientists (grad students and postdocs). These are the venues where they can become known by more senior researchers, and where they can network among themselves, in both cases forming new collaborations. Any rule or funding restriction that discourages US scientists from attending conferences, or from attending some certain set of conferences, will thus place US science at a great disadvantage relative to the rest of the world. I would note in particular that it will place US scientists at a strong competitive disadvantage relative to Chinese scientists as China appears to currently be providing ample funds for both travel to conferences elsewhere and the organization and hosting of conferences in China. I have published roughly 215 papers over the course of my career, including 6 over the past year. Publishing such papers, and the peer review process in particular, is a critical part of ensuring the scientific community that the research is on-track, and in clearly separating such work from low-quality work. I am thus extremely concered that the proposed rule change will place US science at a grave disadvantage. I am further concerned that this will lead to decline in US scientific leadership, with corresponding impacts on the US economy, miltary, and society.