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

The commenter, a computational disease ecologist and co-creator of Grant Witness, urges the NSF to withdraw the proposed Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA). They argue that the GFA prematurely aligns with unfinalized OMB regulations, removes procedural safeguards, and creates a vague "national interest" standard that allows for ideologically motivated, discretionary termination of research awards.

A research administrator with 15 years of experience opposes the proposed guidance, arguing that it incorporates political interference and threatens academic freedom. The commenter specifically criticizes the inclusion of Executive Order 14303 and proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance, claiming they will stifle research, silence scientists, and make it harder to share research results.

The commenter opposes the proposed action, arguing that it represents political overreach that threatens academic freedom and intellectual exchange. They express concern that political interference in scientific research will hinder the progress of knowledge and public health.

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.

The commenter opposes the updated NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, arguing that it unconstitutionally shifts funding power to executive appointees and prioritizes political agendas over scientific merit. They further contend that the changes restrict academic freedom, burden the publication of findings, and will ultimately hinder scientific advancement in the United States.

A mathematician with over 50 years of experience opposes the proposal, arguing that it restricts academic freedom and will lead to a "brain drain" of American scientists. The commenter suggests that such restrictions will cause experts to leave the United States, reversing the historical trend of gaining expertise from fleeing scholars.

The commenter opposes the NSF's proposed guidance, arguing that it aligns with a non-existent OMB regulation that threatens scientific integrity and academic freedom. They characterize the proposal as an overreach of the NSF's authority to control university speech.

The commenter, an individual, opposes the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's proposal and award information guidance. They argue that the changes represent a political interference in scientific funding and a violation of free speech.

A university professor opposes the updated NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, arguing that it allows political appointees to oversee grant funding and undermines the peer review process. The commenter contends that the rule compromises scientific rigor, restricts international collaboration, and infringes upon academic freedom.