Comment from Clare Yu

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of California, Irvine. In particular, I am a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum computers, magnetic systems and cancer. 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 am deeply concerned about the OMB proposed rule changes because funding for these projects and many others will be endangered. For example, I am part of a DOE Energy Frontiers Research Center on Energy Efficient Magnonics that is working on making more energy efficient electronic devices using magnetic materials. I am also part of an Army Research Office grant that is trying to make better superconducting qubits for quantum computers. It has been the long standing practice to have peer review of proposals for federal grants. This means that scientists review the proposals of other scientists in their field. This is a good way to do things because no one person has the expertise to review a broad range of proposals. To change the system and allow political appointees is fraught with problems. For example, what is there to stop the political appointee from awarding grants and funds to friends or big corporations? This will undermine confidence in the system. Furthermore, if good science is not funded, this will be very detrimental to the scientific enterprise in our country. The discoveries and inventions coming from basic science powers our economy; a good example is our tech industry. President Trump recently signed an executive order saying that the our country should have a working quantum computer by 2028. How can we do that if we do not have a strong and secure scientific base? Such a base not only requires a wise allocation of federal resources, but also a workforce that those dollars help to train in research labs. Lack of secure funding is driving many of our young scientists to other countries and is deterring foreign talent from coming to the US. My lab and many others depend on early career researchers because there are not enough Americans trained in highly technical, specialized research fields. Allowing staff members or political appointees to decide what is inconsistent with program goals and agency priorities appears to be rather arbitrary. If the award was made initially by an agency or program, why would it suddenly be deemed inconsistent with the program goals and priorities? This rule would make Principal Investigators very insecure and undermines the scientific enterprise in our country. In my own research, the sudden loss of funding would end my efforts to make more efficient electronic devices and enable superconducting qubits to have long enough coherence times to make a working quantum computer as mandated by the President's recent executive order. I would no longer be able to pay for graduate students and postdocs to work on these research projects. Science is based on integrity and trust in the honesty and fairness of the system. This rule will undermine that trust if grants are based on the whims of political appointees and not on the expert opinions of scientists qualified to evaluate proposals. In short, the proposed rule change is counter to President Trump's pledge to Make America Great Again.