Comment from Jonathan Kujawa

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor of mathematics with over twenty years of experience as a researcher, mentor, and teacher. 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. My research is in theoretical math, where the grant proposals require deep expertise to evaluate, and the future impact is not easy to predict. Peer review has a long track record of success as an effective way to allocate scarce research funds. Work I did while supported by the NSF a decade ago has recently found potential use in quantum computing. That work would not have been funded if funding decisions had been made according to the short-term metrics of non-expert political appointees. Progress in American science and innovation depends on long term, stable, and predicable investments. Decisions made by people motivated by political considerations and timetables will be inefficient, will slow progress, and will deeply damage a key pillar of America's economic strength. The long term, multi-decade research like mine that is a foundation of future discoveries will have no place in the new system.