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

U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 299 posts

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#31

Post by munk-a »

jmalicki wrote: post #9
platinumrad wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't understand how the titans of industry who support the Republican party don't understand that science is the foundation on which their entire fortunes are built.

It benefited them in the past, that allowed them to build up their fortunes. Bill Gates, for example, is now a big holder of farmland. Science allows others to build up fortunes that challenge theirs, and hurts the stasis in which they become gilded aristocracy. Lowering their taxes while burning everything to the ground benefits them now.

I'd argue that it doesn't actually benefit them now since they have more access to comfort than they could ever conceivably consume in their lifetime but I do absolutely agree that they think it benefits them because people who have accumulated wealth to that degree are highly fixated on making the number go up.

A less just, less stable society is far more likely to demonize and destroy billionaires. If you have such a high level of wealth the most rational action is charitability to insure the wealth of people who surround you to prevent instability and lower the chances you'll be the victim of a crime carried out due to desperation.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#32

Post by convolvatron »

kittikitti wrote: post #15

I knew that most research had ties to government funding but it was only recently that I realized the scale of it. Along with the pullback of any government funding remotely resembling DEI, policies like the one described in the article wouldn't decimate research from my previous understanding. In terms of influence, it's now clear to me that the government controls anywhere between 75 to 99% of academic research. I…

that's not entirely true, it is to some degree. by convention there have been a few buffer layers between actual grant allocation and naked politics. funding gets allocated to someplace like NSF, NIH, ONR or DARPA. Those organizations have directorates or area concentrations. Each directorate has a program manager (the terms vary based on org) who puts out request for proposals (grant applications).

The PMs are generally chosen from the sciences, and are responsible for authoring RFPs that meet strategic goals, and negotiate with the PIs (grant recipients) about terms and sizes and such.

So there are really two political realms, above the funding agency, and underneath, and its entire function is reconcile those worlds in a pretty vague way with a certain amount of autonomy given to the PM.

This isn't 100% great, but if you have good PM, some good science does get funding. While this seems like a lot of machinery, if you short circuit all of it, and have the presidents direct flunkies make funding decisions, that basically means that almost no real science gets done.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#34

Post by platinumrad »

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #27
platinumrad wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't understand how the titans of industry who support the Republican party don't understand that science is the foundation on which their entire fortunes are built.

if you "genuinely" want to understand, start considering the opposite - what is the easiest way to defend policy like this? "science with outside helps the other side" - done. Current administration sees US as losing its positions, so the main answer is to close the leaks that feed its opponents with US effort

I am genuinely unable to understand because even if the United States is descending into fascism or whatever, research is the last thing that an effective state wants to disrupt and scientists are one of the last groups that an effective state wants to alienate.

I'm not just referring to restrictions on collaborations with foreign researchers, although I frankly do not see how that meaningfully reduces the ability of opponents to benefit from US research unless we kill open publishing as well. I'm talking about the last year and a half of destroying the ability of every basic researcher I know to work in a stable and predictable environment.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#35

Post by jsrcout »

sega_sai wrote: post #33

The country elects an autocrat who fires experts and puts stooges in positions of power. Surprise-surprise that leads to idiotic policies, some of them mimicking the best hits of Soviet Union.

Oh, absolutely. For instance I never thought Lysenkoism would happen again, but the conditions are ripe for it.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#36

Post by neuronexmachina »

Avicebron wrote: post #12

It's interesting after reading briefly about this, but I think previously NIH funding was more permissive to directly awarding funds to foreign nationals/groups. But interestingly enough, China doesn't do the same for say foreign researchers trying to collaborate with chinese researchers. (Unless you already live there etc etc). So it was indeed asymmetrical.

Do you have a reference for that? At least based on this, it seems like China's trying to increase collaboration and funding for joint research projects with non-Chinese researchers:

* https://www.nsfc.gov.cn/english/site_1/international/D2/2018...

* https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260107-overseas-scho...

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#37

Post by gcanyon »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #22

"In response to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about Science’s reporting, an NIH spokesperson emailed a statement Thursday that referenced just one set of grant programs: the Institutional Development Award (IDeA). NIH’s website says the awards go to Puerto Rico and 23 states that “historically have had low levels of NIH funding." "The recent update to IDeA grantees was a clarification of longstanding policy, not a new…

> a clarification of longstanding policy, not a new directive

I call BS.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#39

Post by nickff »

epistasis wrote: post #18
BeetleB wrote: post #2

This could be understandable if some rationale was provided, but it's worse than that: > Neither agency has publicly issued new formal guidance describing these requirements. Instead, officials are informing grantees individually, leaving researchers confused and concerned. They've not even made it official. They're just randomly flagging.

This is a very common thing for corrupt governments. No rules are clear, so that those at the top can dictate whatever they want whenever they want. Which means that the only safe route is to always be on very very good terms with leadership. Very sad to see the US fall away from the rule of law, into kleptocracy. See also the way that grants are now being distributed at NCI and NSF. Only very large grants for many m…

This is also very foreseeable for an administrative state, and this slippery slope has been predicted for over a century. Rule by administrators (or bureaucrats) is just as opaque/unaccountable/corrupt, and as the extent of their power grew, it was inevitable that the political leadership would exploit the power (as has already happened many times before). It seems like nobody (at least on the liberal end of the spectrum) really cared about the arbitrary use of power when it was mostly left-liberals making the choices.

The way to fix this is to reduce the power of the administrative state, not to just complain about Trump, but I have little hope of a real solution.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#40

Post by runako »

platinumrad wrote: post #34
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you "genuinely" want to understand, start considering the opposite - what is the easiest way to defend policy like this? "science with outside helps the other side" - done. Current administration sees US as losing its positions, so the main answer is to close the leaks that feed its opponents with US effort

I am genuinely unable to understand because even if the United States is descending into fascism or whatever, research is the last thing that an effective state wants to disrupt and scientists are one of the last groups that an effective state wants to alienate. I'm not just referring to restrictions on collaborations with foreign researchers, although I frankly do not see how that meaningfully reduces the ability of…

1. Much of US policy toward science is backlash to Covid vaccinations. Being anti-Science is a way of preventing Science from inflicting itself on the populace again in the future.

2. Science trends toward meritocracy, which is bad if your goal is to promote a particular social hierarchy.

Post reply on HN