Comment from Sean Peters

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a visiting assistant professor of earth and climate sciences. I'm an early career researcher with a specialization in volcanology and planetary science. 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. According to section 200.205, political appointees would have control over grant selection. This would hinder impactful science which may not align with the political landscape at any given time despite the potential of such a grant to advance scientific research, create jobs in research, and contribute to effective teaching goals. The termination of active grants for political reasons (possible under section 200.340) would constitute a fatal blow to 90 years of American science. For my work, this would disrupt progress on existing projects and result in the firing of student researchers. Furthermore, it would be a waste of funds that have been invested towards projects initially funded for aligning with scientific and national objectives. The impact of this rule would devastate the scientific enterprise, higher education, and American competitiveness. Fundamental science and research contributes to the national economy, student education, and advancement in understanding of the natural world. Subjecting curiosity driven research to politicization risks destroying a system that has strengthened American centers of higher education and bolstered our local, state, and national economies.