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

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 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.

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.

Dr. Markus Hoffmann, a professor at SUNY Brockport, opposes the proposed guideline change that would make article processing charges (APCs) illegitimate expenses for NSF grants. He argues that the change will create significant financial barriers for researchers at smaller institutions, potentially discouraging research and hindering the public availability of new knowledge.

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 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.

An NSF-funded researcher provides specific feedback on the draft GFA, requesting the removal of contradictory language regarding publication costs and the inclusion of a net burden estimate for new requirements. The commenter also requests more clarity on termination and risk assessment procedures and seeks clarification on the inclusion of AI-related research misconduct requirements.

A federally-funded scientist opposes the proposed NSF Guidance on Federal Assistance, citing concerns over ambiguous language regarding the suspension and termination of awards. The commenter also argues that making publication costs unallowable will harm scientific research and innovation.