Comment from Harvey Newman

[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor of physics and an expert in high energy physics and global distributed systems for data intensive sciences. 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. My grants would be undermined and potentially made impossible if political appointees have the authority to override peer review. My grants are multiyear, groundbreaking collaborative efforts and such authority would severely damage our ability to plan, architect, develop, and schedule our projects, and meet our scientific goals. If multiyear projects can be terminated at any time, there is no way we could commit resources and schedule collaborative efforts in a consistent way. This would damage the entire scientific enterprise, including my field, and by extension, undermine our paths to new discoveries and the longstanding process leading to our nation's leadership on the world stage. The peer review process has been established over decades as a fair and efficient way to identify grants most worthy of funding on a sound and objective basis. The evaluation of grants on the basis of their scientific merit, the importance of their goals in terms of science and technology advances, the capabilities of the proposers to effectively carry out the proposed work, and the broad impact on scientific research and education, are essential pillars in the success of the nation's research enterprise, its leadership, and the sustained stream of innovations that improve the quality of life.