I understand reviewers concerns. A large number of young scientists worked hard to write and submit NSF CAREER proposals very recently. Their future livelihoods depend on the greater scientific community for qualified reviews and panelists for critical assessment. Do we simply abandon them?

I can't speak with certainty to future possible reorganization(s), but currently (as in past), panel and individual reviewers are advisory. POs make recommendations using this input, but these must be concurred by director(s), and final decisions and awards made by DGA
www.nsf.gov/funding/over...

To add one more point, the recent (negative) changes are outside NSF program officers control, and arrive with no advance notice. There are limited or no way to communicate messages upward. Hence, carefully worded letters aimed to protect jobs are crafted. www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/s...

Declining to serve on an NSF panel does not make a statement, it makes the program officers job harder. I wrote a letter to editor on this specific topic. Another potential outcome of collective declines is that helps justify the use of AI to replace human reviews, IMHO.

tinyurl.com/yc2xtc2d

Outstanding and well deserved!

Have you looked at these kits as possibility? www.zometool.com