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.

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.

An individual is opposing the proposed revisions to the National Science Foundation's Proposal/Award Information Guidance. The commenter argues that the changes prioritize political discretion over scientific peer review, could lead to the cancellation of active projects, and would stifle scientific communication by requiring express approval for conference attendance and publication costs.

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.

A condensed matter physicist opposes the proposed transition to the new draft GFA, arguing that it is premature to link NSF rules to pending OMB revisions that are subject to litigation. The commenter also highlights concerns regarding the lack of clear termination criteria, the creation of an unfunded mandate for publication costs, and the inclusion of vague executive orders.

The commenter opposes the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's Proposal/Award Information Guidance, arguing that the modifications will undermine the NSF's mission, compromise national security, and harm economic prosperity. They claim the changes will introduce biases and unscientific methodologies into the innovation process.

The commenter opposes the proposed guidance, arguing that it could lead to the termination of grants based on political priorities rather than scientific merit. They also express concern that the proposals would negatively impact the ability to communicate research findings through conference travel and publication funding.