Comment from Daniel Pitonyak

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am an associate professor in nuclear 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. If political appointees have the authority to override peer review, then the high impact science that my grants support would be disrupted. This causes future directions of discovery and understanding to be cut off. The experts in the field know what research is at the cutting edge that will allow the US to continue to be leaders in nuclear science. If active grants can be terminated at any time for political reasons, then my ability to train future scientists at a very early stage of their career (undergraduates) could be abruptly stopped. This will adversely affect future scientists' desire to stay in the field, negatively affecting workforce development. This rule upends the meritorious peer review process that has allowed the US to be at the forefront of scientific discovery. Non-expert political appointees do not have the depth of knowledge to understand the applications and impact of certain areas of research.