Comment from Greg Chini

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a full professor of mechanical engineering and applied mathematics, specializing in the study of turbulent fluid flows arising in engineered and natural systems. 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. Recently, I was lead PI on a large DOE grant aiming to improve the design (layout) and performance (power output) of offshore wind farms. The funding for this project was provided in 2-year increments. According to the program manager, our proposal for the second funding instalment was declined primarily because DOE suddenly stopped supporting wind-energy research, clearly in response to presidential directives. This unexpected disruption negatively impacted several junior faculty and students on the project and personnel across 3 institutions. Moreover, the effort to win the initial award was substantial (equivalent to many person-months of work). The termination of the project, just as we had built our team and achieved promising initial results, has severely limited the impact of our work. The entire effort (approximately 3 years of work involving 18 people) has essentially been wasted. More generally, my research program focuses on the fundamental physics and dynamics of complex (turbulent) fluid flows and the spontaneous self-organization that arises amidst the chaos. The understanding gained from this research ultimately is important for myriad applications. Nevertheless, I have serious reservations about the capacity of political appointees to appreciate the value of this (or any) basic scientific research, which may or may not be directly relevant to the latest fashionable applied technologies. By its nature, basic scientific research is a long-term endeavor, requiring stable and predictable funding for project durations of multiple years. Without that foundation, the entire enterprise collapses. Society, via political representatives, should set national priorities, but it is imperative that scientific experts decide the merits of proposed research projects and, ultimately, have the authority to determine which projects are to be funded.