Comment from Benjamin Frandsen

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am an associate professor of physics with a research focus on quantum materials. 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. American scientific leadership relies on the bedrock of rigorous, impartial peer review that has been functioning for decades. Allowing political appointees to override the findings from peer review creates a real risk of slowing scientific progress, missing opportunities for major breakthroughs, and allocating precious resources to projects that are not scientifically sound, all of which would contribute to the weakening of America's global scientific leadership. Sudden termination of an active grant for political reasons would represent a significant waste of resources that is counterproductive for the American public. This rule injects major concerns into the integrity of the grant review process and poses a significant risk to the ability of researchers in America to make foundational discoveries and preserve our nation's scientific edge.