Comment from Donald Marolf

[200.205, 200.340] 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 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies' ability to identify and fund impactful research. I am very concerned that giving political appointees the authority to override peer review will slow U.S. scientific leadership in my field by making uninformed choices, and perhaps even by actively diverting funds to unproductive research directions that may seem politically attractive, or which are based in politcally useful geographic regions of the U.S. Furthermore, allowing active grants to be terminated at any time will make it nearly impossible to recruit and hire postdoctoral researchers to take part in funded projects. Indeed, even without the current rule change, the discussion over the past 18 months of potentially terminating grants already in progress has made hiring much more difficult. Several of my top candidates for a recent postdoctoral position were EU citizens who then declined my job offer to instead take positions in Europe and who explicitly stated that concerns about continuation of funding were a driving factor in their decisions. As a result, I had to settle for a candidate (for the record, also not a US citizen) who was both significnatly less qualified and significantly more expensive. Since postdoctoral researchers are a large fraction of my current grant expenses, this rule change would thus significantly decrease the rate at which research projects can progress, and would also significantly increase their cost. I am thus concerned that the proposed rule change will thus significantly decrease the impact of US scientific research, with corresponding detrimental effects on the US economy, military, and society.