Comment from Jesus Pando

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am an associate professor and chair a department of physics and astrophysics. 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. Many of my current or potential grants involve both undergraduate students and external collaborators. Once a grant has been peer reviewed and approved, we can proceed to a successful completion of the grant. However, if we don't have the assurance of an approved grant, then it is impossible to build the necessary collaborations and to fulfill the promise to students that the opportunity will be available to them. In order to have a thriving science community, the community needs the assurance that once a peer-reviewed grant has been approved, the program will be allowed to continue. Review of grants to see if they are meeting the goals stated in the grant is completely appropriate and should be rigorous. Grants that do not meet these goals should face consequences. However, those reviews should be done by a peer review process and not by political appointees whose criteria may not be accepted scientific rigor.