Comment from Tracy Mandel

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am an Assistant Professor of Ocean Engineering and Mechanical Engineering at the University of New Hampshire. 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. The United States has been the world leader in science for decades because we train outstanding scientists, and allow them to use their highly specialized expertise to identify those projects which will most advance knowledge beneficial to humanity for federal funding. Review panels run by NSF and other agencies with peer review by highly qualified scientists are key to funding competitive, scientifically important research. Changing this greatly reduces the United States' competitiveness in science and technology development on the global stage. Allowing for politics from any party to become involved in science is dangerous. Today, this may mean political cancellation of funding for renewable energy, and under a different administration, this may mean political decisions that terminate funding for research on ideological diversity. The danger of political appointees determining the outcomes of federal grant funding threatens researchers across all parties. Introducing this rule will stifle what is a uniquely American, highly competitive scientific enterprise that makes the U.S. a world leader in both thought and economic development. Putting political appointees in charge of decisions on grant funding puts the U.S. on the track of authoritarian, so-called communist states like Russia/USSR and China.