Comment from Kenneth Bloom

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor and department chair whose research is in experimental particle physics. 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. My professional society has long taken responsibility for long-range strategic planning for my field of research. Over decades, we have given valuable input to the federal funding agencies to help them set priorities for major construction projects. Scientific conferences are an important way to share information and build new relationships that lead to exciting new research directions. Just reading someone's papers is no substitute for meeting them in real life and having an interaction. Also, research can yield surprising results that might turn out to be more appropriate for a conference that you might not have expected at the outset of a project. There is no way that I can understand the state of my field and what the important open questions are without having access to the scientific record. I and my collaborators publish about a hundred papers a year in academic journals, and that has created a body of knowledge that is much more valuable in aggregate than any of the individual pieces. Science thrives on interaction, whether it is through journal publications, gatherings at scientific conferences, or professional society-driven efforts that bring people from across a field together to work for the common purpose of doing the best science.