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 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.

Dr. Charles Weidner, a chemist, opposes the proposed National Science Foundation Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA), arguing that it creates excessive administrative "red tape" and significant economic burdens on research institutions. He recommends withdrawing the GFA until the full economic impact of the new requirements can be properly identified and evaluated.

Louise Fortmann, a private citizen and cancer patient, opposes the proposed regulations on federal research grants. She argues that replacing expert scientific judgment with political opinion will jeopardize critical research in medicine, national security, and economic growth.

The commenter opposes the proposed guidance, arguing that allowing political appointees to oversee research funding may prioritize short-term gains over basic research. They emphasize the importance of funding fundamental science and the dissemination of results, such as conference attendance, to ensure long-term technological innovation.

A researcher in materials science and engineering opposes the OMB proposal, arguing that it will undermine American scientific research and technological leadership. The commenter warns that the proposal will cause the U.S. to lose its competitive edge against China, harming national security and the economy.

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.

An individual commenter opposes the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's information collection activities, arguing that the changes may reduce the potential of grants and harm America's leadership in science. They request a positive ROI analysis regarding the potential reduction in scientific ranks.

A biomedical science doctoral trainee opposes the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's proposal and award information guidance. The commenter argues that the proposal allows for the politicization of science by shifting funding decisions from peer review to political appointees, which they believe will undermine American scientific leadership and data-driven research.

The commenter opposes the National Science Foundation's proposal to update its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. They argue that the changes align with efforts to politicize research funding, threaten scientific independence, and impose unnecessary regulatory control over higher education institutions.