Comment from Harold Evans

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor in the field of experimental high energy 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. Transparency, accountability, and oversight of my grants will be significantly worsened if political appointees have the authority to override peer review based decisions. My research provides tangible benefits to to many US high-tech areas. However, its timescales are long term and it is international in nature. Putting final decision making into the hands of people with little experience in these complex projects could introduces a level of arbitrariness into the process that would jeopardize decades of federal investment. Even the perceived risk of political termination of grants would cause the US to be seen as an unreliable partner in large projects spanning more than a decade. A rational, well-understood system is necessary for such projects to proceed. Putting the final decision-making authority in the grant process into the hands of political appointees will certainly decrease the transparency of this process. Accountability will be only to the administration in power and ultimate oversight will fall to those with limited expertise in the unique details of each reserach field.