Comment from Gareth Eaton

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor of chemistry 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. Communication with colleagues at professional meetings and via professional societies are crucial to keeping up to date. One never knows the direction that research results will lead you. It is important to share ideas with other scientists whose expertise and interests overlap. This may take one to other countries. Reading scientific journal papers and participating in conferences is key to doing science. We need to know what others have learned and share our results with others. Finding a paper not read before has often changed the direction of my research. I publish several papers per year. These papers stimulate researchers in other countries to collaborate with us, providing samples, expertise, and spectroscopy instrumentation no available in the US. Scientists are passionate about the impact of their knowledge. Restricting advocacy or membership in societies or conferences that include advocacy will stultify research and politicize discussion.