Comment from Christine Nattrass

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a nuclear physics professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 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. It is a given that active nuclear physicists are members of the American Physical Society. APS meetings are the primary location for disseminating results within the US, as well as for career development for young scientists. This is the way we come up with a coherent scientific strategy as a community. I cannot fathom how we would have any coherence in nuclear physics without professional societies. Scientific careers are developed at conferences. It is how we disseminate results and where I scout talent to hire for positions. Without conferences, results would not be disseminated and professional connections would not be forged. I cannot fathom how we would function without conferences - and we seldom know what conferences there will be in the next year, let alone during the 3-year term of a typical grant. Journals are essential to communicate science to the community. It is expensive to do this, but it is also a core part of the scientific infrastructure. We are expected to publish our results in reputable journals. Those papers are the way we disseminate our results. Without publications, there is no record of the work and it is as if it did not happen. Overall, these results would make daily functions as a scientist impossible.