Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 336 posts

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#101

Post by russdill »

jsbg wrote: post #92
Onawa wrote: post #25

As a federal contractor within NIH, I can tell you that the damage has already been done to the United States' dominance in science. Even if every action taken by current administration is reversed, the uncertainty for foreign scientists is too much. Many that I have spoken to are looking for their exit from either gov or academic research, or looking to leave the United States completely. The Trump admins cuts are n…

> realize that you will most likely end up in industry. > Things are quite bleak right now... you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes?

Yes.

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#102

Post by HelloMcFly »

Xplan wrote: post #74
throwaway5752 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A clusterfuck describes chaos and disorganization. This is just a deliberate attack, it is being executed well. It is just malicious.

[flagged]

Chevron was never a partisan “Democratic” trick, it was a 1984 Supreme Court precedent that applied to every administration for forty years. It simply said that when a statute is ambiguous, courts should accept a reasonable agency reading unless Congress says otherwise (Congress always had the power). That is ordinary separation‑of‑powers.

When the Court overturned Chevron, it did not “return law‑making to Congress” as some claim, it didn't give Congress any more power than it already had. It instead shifted final interpretive power from expert agencies to federal judges. Congress still writes broad statutes and still relies on agencies to fill in technical details only now those rules are more vulnerable to litigation and inherently more fragile.

Comparing that process to Elon Musk’s influence misses the mark. Agencies are public, transparent, and (at least theoretically) answerable to elected branches; Musk is a private supplier whose market dominance lets him set terms with little democratic oversight. One is statutory delegation, the other is private leverage with clear and obvious conflicts of interest.

Treating them as equivalent flattens important distinctions and obscures the real accountability gaps in each scenario.

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#103

Post by BowBun »

jsbg wrote: post #92
Onawa wrote: post #25

As a federal contractor within NIH, I can tell you that the damage has already been done to the United States' dominance in science. Even if every action taken by current administration is reversed, the uncertainty for foreign scientists is too much. Many that I have spoken to are looking for their exit from either gov or academic research, or looking to leave the United States completely. The Trump admins cuts are n…

> realize that you will most likely end up in industry. > Things are quite bleak right now... you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes?

If it results in megacorps 'forcing' papers that misrepresent the truth for their own gains, yeah that's pretty bleak. Think weed killers, sugar, etc.

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#104

Post by whatshisface »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #70
The5thElephant wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not doing basic research, and your research is entirely driven by short-term profit motives rather than long term benefit of humanity.

Bell Labs is a counterexample that ran for decades, and pharma companies have internal research labs, I know Motorola and Apple have, too. In my experience, industry can be vastly better funded, but the industry labs are internal and perhaps very hard to find.

Here is an incomplete list of things that it's impossible to research in industry:

1. Astronomy.

2. Physics.

3. Geophysics concerning the parts of the Earth deeper than the crust.

4. Biology aside from medicine.

5. Chemistry aside from industrial chemistry.

6. Theoretical computer science.

7. Mathematics.

I'm not blaming you for not knowing this, but I am holding my head in my hands - how can people not know about astronomers? They've been a part of our culture and the prestige of civilization for thousands of years.

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#105

Post by ijk »

robinsoncrusue wrote: post #71
Onawa wrote: post #25

As a federal contractor within NIH, I can tell you that the damage has already been done to the United States' dominance in science. Even if every action taken by current administration is reversed, the uncertainty for foreign scientists is too much. Many that I have spoken to are looking for their exit from either gov or academic research, or looking to leave the United States completely. The Trump admins cuts are n…

> the damage has already been done to the United States' dominance in science Why should my tax dollar subsidize for the dominance of US in science? How has US dominance in science helped the average American taxpayer in last decade other than funneling billions to arms or pharma industry or funding academians being out of touch with the rest of the country?

Other than, say, the GPS on your phone, the internet that you're posting on, or anything like that--you want to know what government-funded basic science has done to benefit you lately, not any of these decade-long timeline projects that are best funded by institutions with long time horizons, such as governments. Yes, we must have results that are brought to market this quarter, so the government-funded research justifies itself in the free market.

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#106

Post by jsbg »

russdill wrote: post #101
jsbg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> realize that you will most likely end up in industry. > Things are quite bleak right now... you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes?

Yes.

what are your thoughts on the replication crisis?

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#107

Post by russdill »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg Sabine highlights the problem with scientific funding in this video and it should be required watching before posting on this thread. Reform is needed. Some good will be tossed with a lot of bad. Its a cycle, a pendulum, and it will eventually tip to excess again sometime in the future. For now... fixing what is broken ought to be the priority.

Yes, lighting the house on fire may have not been the best plan, but in all fairness the it was a mess and something had to be done.

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#108

Post by BLenkomo »

robinsoncrusue wrote: post #71
Onawa wrote: post #25

As a federal contractor within NIH, I can tell you that the damage has already been done to the United States' dominance in science. Even if every action taken by current administration is reversed, the uncertainty for foreign scientists is too much. Many that I have spoken to are looking for their exit from either gov or academic research, or looking to leave the United States completely. The Trump admins cuts are n…

> the damage has already been done to the United States' dominance in science Why should my tax dollar subsidize for the dominance of US in science? How has US dominance in science helped the average American taxpayer in last decade other than funneling billions to arms or pharma industry or funding academians being out of touch with the rest of the country?

[dead]

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#109

Post by duxup »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #70
The5thElephant wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not doing basic research, and your research is entirely driven by short-term profit motives rather than long term benefit of humanity.

Bell Labs is a counterexample that ran for decades, and pharma companies have internal research labs, I know Motorola and Apple have, too. In my experience, industry can be vastly better funded, but the industry labs are internal and perhaps very hard to find.

Pretty good article on Bell Labs recently, but also I think it indicates how it's not likely to exist in the US again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43957010

Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation

#110

Post by neomantra »

sepositus wrote: post #14
vessenes wrote: post #3

Good read; too long to sway public opinion though. The most convincing and interesting thing I’ve read about the US’s science standing is just a reminder that it wasn’t always considered a global science leader. A few people saw the opportunity created by Nazi ideological purges of scientists and built, among other things, Princeton’s IAS. Considered most charitably, the current administration sees itself as trying t…

> If I were in charge of science in a wealthy country right now I would be working overtime to brain drain US researchers. My perception (probably skewed by overly negative media) is that the US is leading a global trend (emphasis on leading). It feels like the world is too busy preparing for war or economic gloom than trying to poach scientists.

Counterpoint via anecdotes… this week I am at the International Symposium for Green Chemistry. >600 chemists from all over the world. They are all psyched to advance safer and sustainable solutions to a wide variety of problems. You see all their funding sources from the UN to EU to country to city to local, as well as private companies. You see their collaboration and enthusiasm.

Of course the US comes up… but it seems that the rest of the world is just moving on without us (I am American). Our government is simply an unreliable partner. Some US PhD candidates here are looking for post-doc labs in the EU.

A speaker for Dow Chemical was talking about their Year 2050+ plan for net-zero CO2 and circular economy. I was surprised to learn (news was last month) that Dow cancelled their $9B net-zero ethylene processing facility in Canada because US tariffs will make it too expensive (to build it and long term it’s the source of ethylene). Imagine the jobs lost, contracts lost, US exports lost, and environmental damage.

This morning I had this conversation (before seeing OP): “If all the US university research funding disintegrates, how does that affect the primacy of US science education? How should somebody applying to college now think about this?” Perhaps focus on a teaching-focused college and then try to do the research abroad? Of course such choices are more easily available to the wealthy. US higher science education and industry will just naturally decline?

Random: Only one talk I’ve seen so far included a GitHub repo.

Separately, I have multiple friends who lost their US lab funding and/or jobs. I also have a friend who was being poached via Dutch Visa fast-track. I think the science brain drain is real.

Post reply on HN