Comment from Hope Bretscher

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am an assistant professor in experimental condensed matter 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 about the possibility of political appointees overriding peer review. Peer review is not perfect - and is increasingly under pressure because of the rising number of proposals and ease of writing with Peer Reviews. But giving political appointees the ability to override is highly concerning as well - we need to institute a system with checks and balances (I understand there are concerns about political ideas of academics themselves). I have worked previously in Germany- an academic system that used to lead the world. The research environment in Germany was decimated after WWII, and while it is strong, it has yet to recover the prominence it once held. The US is playing with fire and risking falling sway to the same fate: this is something we should not do- it is incredible how the US is such a center of research and academic excellence. Increasing politicization will destroy this. The US Academic system arose in the wake of WWII. Peer review, in grants, was instituted purely because of fears of grant managers in the 1970s having too much control. In this regard, I think it is highly problematic in sections "2 CFR § 200.205" - that there will be political appointees checking the content of grants. There are a lot of research that is important that has long-term impacts - and there should not be non-experts with unilateral control able to prevent this research from occuring. I am highly concerned as well by section § 200.340: Research can be challenging and often there must be sustained long-term investment to tackle the most risky problems. THese are the research that has potential to change society. It is impossible to operate research if there is constantly a possibility that funds will be terminated. As someone who has been a postdoc and grad student, it is very challenging to have such a precarious lifestyle (already - as contracts can be very short). If ones contract can be terminated without notice- this is not an environment that can produce high-quality research. I am terrified by this possibility- and would likely relocate to Europe should these become commonplace. Science needs to have the ability to pursue risky ideas, and it needs time to do so. Political oversight in granting, as well as possibly terminating grants- puts this at risk, and will kill the vitality and world-leading nature of the American Research system. Having worked in the UK and Germany, two countries that formerly were leaders in research, I have experienced how strong US research is; history has shown how challenging it is to rebuild once that reputation is destroyed.