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

241–250 of 336 posts

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

#241

Post by mettamage »

vessenes wrote: post #172
mettamage wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

500 million euro's to attract scientists? I asked ChatGPT, it thought for 3 minutes and 36 seconds. You can see the Q&A here [1]. Assuming that a one year salary of the average scientist is 100K euro's [2] then that means you're trying to attract an extra 1250 scientists that will work for 4 years. That doesn't sound like a lot on a continental scale. [1] https://chatgpt.com/share/682376a6-5c68-8005-89ab-2bedd453c7..…

Here’s the thing: scientists follow roughly a double power law in breakthrough and skills. What if that 1250 is 50 top tier and 1200 of their chosen lab mates?

That's fair

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

#242

Post by mettamage »

burkaman wrote: post #191
mettamage wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

500 million euro's to attract scientists? I asked ChatGPT, it thought for 3 minutes and 36 seconds. You can see the Q&A here [1]. Assuming that a one year salary of the average scientist is 100K euro's [2] then that means you're trying to attract an extra 1250 scientists that will work for 4 years. That doesn't sound like a lot on a continental scale. [1] https://chatgpt.com/share/682376a6-5c68-8005-89ab-2bedd453c7..…

I respect your opinion, to me it does sound like a lot, and it's also on top of many existing programs and a few other new things included in this announcement. > The initiative also includes a target for member states to allocate 3 percent of their GDP to R&D projects by 2030. [...] The plan, originally proposed by the French government, also proposes creating long-term “super grants” for outstanding researchers, to…

Ah, thanks for showing me more context about it. I considered the 500 million too much into isolation

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

#243

Post by jltsiren »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #59
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…

You didn't say what's wrong with ending up in industry, but mention it like it's bad?

Industry researchers are less likely to release their findings to the public, because their bosses choose that way. They are also doing research, but the outcomes of the research are fundamentally different.

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

#244

Post by mike_hearn »

whatshisface wrote: post #104
jjtheblunt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 as…

Things aren't impossible to research in industry. Managers with an R&D budget can fund whatever research they want, and it's easy to find examples of companies doing research in most of the fields you name. The fields where it's not are because you've defined them in a circular fashion e.g. "chemistry aside from industrial chemistry" is not an argument for "there are things you can't do in industry", and space research is primarily driven by the private sector now but I guess you are defining astronomy to only include study of things too far away to matter to anyone except astronomers.

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

#245

Post by allturtles »

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?

“Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health ... what have the Romans ever done for us?"

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

#246

Post by mike_hearn »

voxl wrote: post #90
itsoktocry wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Scientists have gone on record with admissions they deliberately lied in order to manipulate the public. Example:

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."

That's happened several times. Include the subpoenaed documents where scientists admit doing so when they thought they weren't being observed, and it goes up into the dozens of times. If you include all the occasions when they "optimistically" made things up whilst stating them as unarguable scientific fact as lies, it gets into the hundreds of times minimum.

It's amazing how backwards the conversation is on HN around COVID. The fact that scientists lied during COVID is an unarguable fact, this belief isn't to do with people not "understanding the basics of science". Scientists did it, they did it to control people, they have sometimes admitted doing it directly and unambiguously, and they certainly did it many more times without being caught.

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

#247

Post by azemetre »

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.

Bell Labs was a monopoly granted by the US government where they were literally compelled by Congress to invest in research.

I also don't buy the notion that industry is better for science, maybe if you want to research ways to damage humans and the environment sure but most people don't want these things.

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

#248

Post by LexiMax »

AlexandrB wrote: post #142
User23 wrote: post #76

Scientists commit to politics. Election happens. Election has consequences. Shocker. To be fair conservatives warned about this for decades but nobody listened. The only possible response to this propaganda piece are nodding along religiously or revulsion and disgust at the sheer intellectual dishonesty of it. This kind of superficial performative nonsense is a big part of why the replication crisis is as bad as it i…

It's pretty depressing watching comments here that say anything other than "this is the worst thing ever" or "this is fascism" get downvoted/flagged into oblivion.

Any social media site that delegates moderation responsibilities to its users will eventually run into these sorts of problems.

At a certain scale, you're almost guaranteed to get moderation via populism simply because the friction for using these tools in bad faith is far too low and there never seems to be enough of a punishment for misuse.

Shockingly, I've found Hacker News to be far worse about how it promotes echo chamber behavior than most subreddits, despite how much tougher it is to obtain access to these tools. On the other hand, it's far less of a problem on Tildes, and I suspect that's in large part due to there simply not being a explicit downvote button. However, the fact that "Noisy" and "Spam" tags haven't been abused might simply due to its smaller scale.

To be clear, I actually agree with the people downvoting you, despite not doing so myself. But if you find that distasteful, don't hate the player, hate the game.

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

#249

Post by WillPostForFood »

hackyhacky wrote: post #217
WillPostForFood wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that different than the author of this article. Is she a neutral scientist acting in the best interest of science? No, she is a Biden political appointee: Nelson was deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and principal deputy director for science and society of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Is she even a highly qualified? She has a Ph.D., but in what? Nelson earned a Bachelor of Science…

Being appointed by a former president makes her unqualified to comment on the subject how? If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Dismissing her arguments because of who is making them is ad hominem fallacy. You're using a person's associations as an excuse to avoid engaging with their ideas.

That's the exact argument that I was responding to! The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Surely you looked into the arguments, and judge them without bias, and didn't jump to a conclusion based on his associations.

They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.

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

#250

Post by WillPostForFood »

kacesensitive wrote: post #141
WillPostForFood wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that different than the author of this article. Is she a neutral scientist acting in the best interest of science? No, she is a Biden political appointee: Nelson was deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and principal deputy director for science and society of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Is she even a highly qualified? She has a Ph.D., but in what? Nelson earned a Bachelor of Science…

Oh no, not a Ph.D. from NYU and a science policy leadership role under a president—how scandalous! Imagine thinking someone who specializes in the intersection of science, society, and governance might be... qualified to advise on science and society. Her research literally focuses on how science and technology shape—and are shaped by—social forces. But sure, let’s pretend like policy isn't supposed to involve people…

Ph.D. in American studies - that you cut that out is... notable.

There are no scientific qualifications in her education.

Post reply on HN