Why I'm resigning from the National Science Foundation • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by ben_w » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:11 PM UTC

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…

> how can people not know about astronomers?

Light pollution. Lots of people now live in places where the stars are hard to spot.

And now we also all have infinite distraction cuboids, many who can still see them if they look, won't look.

And if you don't know what's out there — or mistakenly categorise all of space as scifi — then why would you be curious about it? Why even ask who might research it?

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

#252

Post by WillPostForFood » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:12 PM UTC

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #83

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…

Why is being a Biden appointee grounds to assume she isn't acting in the best interests of Science?

Never said she wasn't acting in the best interest, just that she is a political appointee with no science education, and very little in her resume to suggest she is qualified.

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

#253

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

postalrat wrote: post #63

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.

People will prefer calling it both malicious and disorganized. Well executed sounds too positive.

Calling it well-executed is pragmatic. There's no reason to avoid positive-sounding things if they're true, especially not because it's positive.

  If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

  -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

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

#254

Post by kacesensitive » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #250

kacesensitive wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh please—spare us the performative gatekeeping. “No scientific qualifications”? She led the Office of Science and Technology Policy and served on the National Science Board. Her expertise is in how science operates within society, which is exactly what her job required. You think only lab coats get to weigh in on national science policy? That’s not how interdisciplinary governance works—unless you’re allergic to the idea of social context in science, which, frankly, explains a lot.

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

#255

Post by voxl » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #246

voxl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

Why did you deliberately leave out the whole quote?

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent ... 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. We need to have some humility here .... We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."

Some emphasis: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."

So, let me get this straight. Your argument that Fauci "lied" is that he increased numbers for herd immunity beyond what he had said in the past. Yet you neglect to mention that he admits these numbers are sciences best guess and as the situation evolved it appeared the number would have to be higher. Moreover, a higher percentage is naturally going to benefit more people, if you buy into the premise that vaccines are very low risk and very high impact, so if you have a reason to believe that the number may be higher calling it a "lie" to shift the percentage higher is ridiculous.

Listen, I get that this sentence you simply don't agree with: "vaccines are very low risk and very high impact." Yes, that is part of the problem, you are brainwashed and anti-intellectual. I don't even know why I'm engaging with you! Partly because I was surprised at your quote, and then angry to learn you lied about it.

It's embarrassing to me, frankly. It's tiring to see that people like you exist.

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

#256

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:28 PM UTC

mlinhares wrote: post #51

eig wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent commenter is not speaking about science as a whole, they are speaking about US dominance in science. You state that "hiccup won't stop or even slow down science in the US. All it will do is take government out of the equation." I disagree and I would suspect most scientists reading that statement would also disagree. I too have seen many bright people turning away from the US because of this. I am personal…

Germany could have invented the atomic bomb and decimated the world if it wasn't for the Nazi stupidity.

That they didn't is not only because of German antipathy to origin of some of the ideas. Despite official condemnation, the Germans remained interested in the technology. One of the lesser-known allied successes in the war was a series of commando actions on a Norwegian power plant which was the largest producer of heavy water in the world at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage

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

#257

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:36 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #246

voxl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 fact that scientists lied during COVID is an unarguable fact,

If only you were so concerned about the people who insisted (without evidence) that 'it's just a cold' and those who made opposition to reasonable public health measures into their full time job.

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

#258

Post by anigbrowl » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:40 PM UTC

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?

I do, and I'm tired of pretending it's not.

If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding, I would. Science research has a high overall economic multiplier and frankly I'm sick of how one political tendency in the US has chosen to clothe itself in ignorance for political gain. It's contemptible.

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

#259

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:46 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #52

throwaway5752 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a clusterfuck. The librarian of congress move was a deliberate hostile attempt attempt by the executive to take control over the legislative branch. Just like AFL vs John Roberts is a hostile attempt to take over the judicial. It's an concerted attempted authoritarian takeover through bureaucratic methods. When they exhaust this, you'll see them frustrated and declare states of emergencies. The founders wrot…

"It's not a clustefuck" ... proceeds to describe a clusterfuck ... What was your intention here?

[deleted]

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

#260

Post by nailer » Tue, May 13, 2025, 9:48 PM UTC

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #61

nailer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why this is being voted down. The NSF did actively pursue DEI and the US government is obligated not to fund organizations that discriminate based on race.

DEI is not illegal racial discrimination. It's literally the solution to centuries of racial discrimination.

Discriminating job candidates by race, regardless of the intention, is racial discrimination.