Comment from Kenneth Bloom

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a full professor and department chair doing research in experimental particle 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 do research at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory. If political appointees decided that they did not want to interact with Europe or other nations they could override peer reviews that have consistently recognized this research as having great importance. One of the grants I lead helps support dozens of people at twenty different U.S. universities. The sudden termination of this grant would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of scientists, engineers, and technicians all over the country. Peer review is the true "gold standard" of science that makes sure that the most important and impactful research that will bring the greatest good to U.S. citizens is funded. This is what has made U.S. science the envy of the world. The new rule would put all of that at risk and potentially waste resources on research that doesn't provide the greatest value.