[deleted]
Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
221–230 of 336 posts
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know those scientists and engineers would have contributed less to society had they been employed based on supply and demand instead of central planning?
Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question. That’s designed to conjure up scary images of Cold War-era Russia or China, but it’s really not how things work in a democracy where democratically-elected representatives allocate money based on their constituents’ interests, and hire experts in their fields to disburse those funds to private researchers based on the recommendations…
> but it’s really not how things work in a democracy
The US is very purposefully not a democracy.
> Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question.
My motives are transparently not to have the money I earn taken from me to subsidize theoretical science research.
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#223As 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…
How is "scientific dominance" defined? Dollars per Papers per minute?
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> too long to sway public opinion Our founders were aware of the perils of letting public opinion write public policy. We’ve spent a lot of the post-Cold War era dismantling that anti-populist infrastructure. To the extent I see a guiding light out of this mess, it’s in reducing the electoral fetishism that has dominated post-90s democratic discourse. There is more to democracy (and more pointedly, republics) than po…
The US has (almost by design?) a system the favors tyranny of the minority. I'd argue the opposite: that the majority of voters are not well represented. Our two party system with capped Congress member count (which is reflected in the executive branch) and useless Senate only serve a minority of (monied) interests in the country.
> the majority of voters are not well represented
The majority are well represented. They’re just idiots. This isn’t a criticism of Americans; it’s why direct democracy fails in a predictable, partisan way in any society. (If you really think about it, you’re probably something of an idiot a good amount of the time. And you, like me, probably hold stupid views with low conviction because it was never worth it to do the research.)
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where have you been for the past 25 years?? These are par for the course in our governing class. This isn't whataboutism , this is extensive behavior that we've seen for at least a generation now (e.g. expensive speeches to Wall St, congressional insider trading, revolving door of regulators/industry)
> Where have you been for the past 25 years? This is a very myopic view. In the past 3 months, we've seen curtailing of civil liberties (bypassing due process), open bribery (memecoin pay-to-play, Qatari airplane), illegal interference with independent agencies (firing head of CFPB), executive overreach ("emergency" tariffs), violations of free speech (punishing law firms for their clients), etc. None of this is prec…
The Clinton Foundation somehow wasn't open bribery? That was the most powerful political family in America for a generation. You think people paid him&her for speeches because they're talented orators?
Pelosi insider trading is a minor transgression? She was the most powerful congressman for years. You think she didn't do anything to earn those stock tips?
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#226As 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…
How is "scientific dominance" defined? Dollars per Papers per minute?
The qualitative definition, that of practically every major technological breakthrough of the last half century having emerged from America, even if it was later capitalised on by others, more than suffices.
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where have you been for the past 25 years? This is a very myopic view. In the past 3 months, we've seen curtailing of civil liberties (bypassing due process), open bribery (memecoin pay-to-play, Qatari airplane), illegal interference with independent agencies (firing head of CFPB), executive overreach ("emergency" tariffs), violations of free speech (punishing law firms for their clients), etc. None of this is prec…
The Clinton Foundation somehow wasn't open bribery? That was the most powerful political family in America for a generation. You think people paid him&her for speeches because they're talented orators? Pelosi insider trading is a minor transgression? She was the most powerful congressman for years. You think she didn't do anything to earn those stock tips?
Wow, it's like you didn't even read/understand my comment.
Yes, those are problems. Congressional stock trading should be illegal, although it isn't at the moment. The Clinton Foundation was noticeably founded after Bill Clinton was president; lots of presidents get money for speeches, but typically after they hold elected office.
What you are missing is the scale and openness of the current corruption. Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, received a pearl necklace valued at $425 from Bangladeshi Prime Minister and was not allowed to keep it; now, Trump is getting a $400 million plane from the Qataris and apparently is allowed to keep it. Does that seem the same to you?
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
[EDIT: The way I wrote this was mean, and why be mean? Rephrasing to be less mean: I reviewed the thread and found your claim to be inaccurate] Yeah, that's enough of this for one day.
[flagged]
The root post of this thread was concerned with the effects of, "The Trump admins cuts", as is TFA.
I think I see what you mean, however: that your original post in this thread could be read as setting that aside and treating of just the sub-topic of whether there's any fraud in science (of course there's some).
However, the post I responded to (not your post, to be clear) mentioned DOGE by name: "I have yet to see any real evidence of fraud from the DOGE reports" (to be fair to that poster, I think they read your "why do think so much fraud has been uncovered lately?" as being about that, given the context of the thread, and as the most prominent claims of fraud in general and, specifically, in government funding of science lately have been from DOGE and friends, though evidently that's not what you meant). Between that, TFA, and the root of the thread, I hope you can see why I bristled a bit at being accused of being "the only person talking about DOGE in this thread", given that I was responding to a post that mentioned them by name, and that it's, more-or-less, also the topic of TFA and the root post of this thread.
I do empathize with your being exhausted with the topic of Trump/DOGE, but would suggest that this is maybe not a good thread to expect to avoid it in, given the topic of the linked article.
Re: Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Please provide evidence of fraud in government funding. I have yet to see any real evidence of fraud from the DOGE reports, just contracts and projects that don't align with the current administration's world view and priorities. Yes, scientists are human and there are certainly instances of scientific misconduct that take time to root out. In the grand scheme of things, funding for science generates many times its v…
Might be referencing the replication crisis.