Comment from Anne Cox

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor of 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. A grant that I worked on in the past to help support and retain faculty in physics would not have been funded. Peer review is fundamental to scientific inquiry and progress. Mid-grant termination is extremely disruptive and unfair. This happened to a grant for which I served on the review board. Teachers paid for travel out of pocket and were unable to get reimbursed so loss money that was promised to them-- these are not wealthy individuals and the loss of several hundred dollars was significant. The scientific method is predicated on testing hypotheses: this is the role of peer review in publications and in grant evaluation. Peers who are experts in the field are the ones best positioned to evaluate the likely success and impact of proposed grant activities. The peer review process has worked well for many years and resulted in the United States as a leader in science and technology. Undermining this system will result inferior science and the US will no longer be a global leader in science and technology.