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

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.

A physician and former researcher opposes the proposed changes to the NSF's information collection activities. They argue that the changes prioritize political considerations over peer review and will harm American science, innovation, and research diversity.

The commenter, a former NSF grant recipient, opposes the proposed changes to the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. They argue that the changes will restrict international collaboration, undermine the peer-review process, and reduce the United States' competitiveness in global scientific research.

A scientist commenting in an individual capacity opposes the draft NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA). The commenter argues that the GFA is premature, exceeds statutory authority, underestimates administrative costs, removes civil-rights protections, and creates significant risks for international collaboration and research stability.

The commenter opposes the proposed OMB regulatory requirements, arguing that they will hinder scientific progress, increase administrative costs, and undermine the United States' position as a global leader in innovation. They express concern that political oversight will interfere with expert peer review and that the regulations may deter talented scientists from pursuing careers in the U.S.

The commenter opposes the proposed policy changes by the National Science Foundation, arguing that they would undermine scientific independence, academic freedom, and public trust. They call for the NSF to withdraw the changes to protect the integrity of American science.

An individual commenter opposes the NSF proposal, arguing that it imposes excessive regulatory control over higher education institutions and infringes upon academic freedom and speech. The commenter characterizes the action as a gross overreach of authority and an attempt to bypass standard OMB regulatory processes.

The commenter opposes the proposal, arguing that it threatens scientific research integrity, restricts international collaboration, and imposes excessive regulatory control over academic freedom. They specifically highlight concerns regarding the accelerated suspension of awards, the making of publication costs unallowable, and the removal of civil rights requirements.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF guidance, arguing that it will harm U.S. scientific leadership by requiring research to align with political priorities, blocking funding for open access publications, and restricting international collaborations with countries like China.

A neuroscientist opposes the NSF proposal, arguing that it aligns with a corrupt OMB rule that would compromise scientific independence and academic freedom. The commenter claims the proposal allows political appointees to override scientific review and imposes burdensome regulatory controls on universities.