Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Science Foundation Proposal/Award Information Guidance on Financial Assistance

gener8tor, a company supporting high-growth startups and university spinouts, argues that the current eligibility language for for-profit entities is too ambiguous and creates barriers to commercialization. They recommend explicitly including for-profit organizations that demonstrate a commitment to research commercialization and incorporating an analysis of indirect cost rates to ensure efficient use of funds.

The Stand Up for Science Foundation opposes the proposed National Science Foundation Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA), arguing that it imposes sweeping regulatory controls and significant economic burdens on institutions of higher education without sufficient statutory authority. They request the withdrawal of the proposal until a thorough regulatory impact analysis is conducted and the agency clarifies how it will navigate various executive orders and OMB regulations.

The American Anthropological Association supports the National Science Foundation's transition to the Guidance on Financial Assistance but requests a detailed "crosswalk" comparison between the old and new policies to ensure transparency. They also recommend that the new guidance specifically recognize the unique data stewardship needs of anthropological research, support community-based partnerships, and include discipline-inclusive examples.

The commenter provides a lengthy, rambling list of grievances including climate change denial, criticisms of federal spending, and various legal complaints against judges and government agencies. The comment does not take a specific position on the proposed National Science Foundation information collection guidance.

The commenter opposes the proposed guidance because they believe it allows political priorities to influence scientific peer review and grants agencies too much discretion to suspend or terminate awards. They also express concern that new restrictions on conference attendance and publication costs will hinder the dissemination of research.

A faculty member at the University of California, Santa Cruz, opposes the proposed changes to the NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance. The commenter argues that the changes would politicize scientific funding, jeopardize long-term research stability, and unfairly restrict the dissemination of research results by refusing to cover publication costs.

An individual commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it represents an attack on the scientific community and the integrity of government-funded research. They request that the rule not be finalized and call for the removal of those who proposed it.