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

A private citizen expresses strong support for maintaining public research funding, arguing that it is essential for the education and healthcare systems. The commenter emphasizes that the proposed actions could harm the public's ability to access important information.

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 argues for a balance between political priorities and scientific independence in research funding. They advocate that while political leaders should set broad priorities, individual funding decisions and scientific evaluations should remain with independent scientific committees to protect fundamental research.

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 former virology researcher opposes the proposed changes to the National Science Foundation's proposal and award information guidance. The commenter argues that the changes will hamper scientific research and education by restricting the current open and successful funding model.

The commenter opposes the proposed NSF policy change, arguing that it prioritizes specific new programs and increased limits for certain proposal types at the expense of core basic research funding. They also criticize the document for being rushed and for failing to explain the TRUST framework.

A university professor shares a personal history of receiving NSF support throughout their career as a student, postdoc, and researcher. They argue that the NSF is essential to national scientific standing and should receive more funding rather than cuts.