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

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 and award information guidance, specifically criticizing the "Expanded and Accelerated Termination Authority." They argue that the ability to suspend or terminate awards without notice or a corrective action plan creates a lack of clarity regarding a recipient's ability to exercise appeal rights.

A PhD student opposes the proposed guidance, arguing that it creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and undermines the National Science Foundation's mandate to protect the national interest. The commenter requests that the NSF completely rescind the change, claiming it will sabotage American research.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF policy changes, arguing that they prematurely align with an unfinalized and litigated OMB regulation. They express concern that the proposal bypasses public comment requirements and allows political appointees to influence grant selections without sufficient scientific expertise or oversight.

The commenter, an individual who has also published concerns in *The Lancet*, strongly opposes the NSF adopting the proposed OMB rules. They argue that the rules would allow political appointees to exert undue control over scientific funding and grant management, potentially prioritizing ideology over evidence-based research.

The commenter, a researcher, opposes the proposed NSF rule changes, arguing that they may contradict pending OMB regulations and were developed without the oversight of the National Science Board. They also express concern that the rules could restrict the publication of research and lead to the waste of taxpayer money and scientific progress.

The commenter, a private individual, opposes the proposed guidance because they believe it allows for political interference in grant funding and bypasses the peer-review process. They argue that the changes threaten funding for critical medical research and urge for a delay in the OMB timeline to consider more public comments.

Dr. Walter H. Moos, commenting in a personal capacity, supports the NSF's mission but urges the agency to avoid premature adoption of pending OMB rules and to protect award stability. He advocates for preserving merit-based review, recognizing negotiated indirect cost rates, and allowing for publication and repository costs.

The commenter, identifying as an NSF grantee and grant reviewer, opposes the proposed guidance because they believe it undermines the collaborative peer review process and violates democratic principles. They argue that the change could damage the international standing of U.S. scientific research.