WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

Unfortunately, these are agency rules. Congress can intervene, but only with major legislative action, which is unlikely. There will be hearings and Senators will express great concern, but the Administration will probably be able to do whatever they want. If anything slows this down, it will be the courts.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#6

Post by andai » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #4

I'm curious to see how this is defended by the party members here. Science should be guided by science, not ideology.

Indeed. Science has always been purely neutral and free any kind of social, cultural, institutional or economic pressures. That's the whole point!

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#7

Post by pstuart » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:52 AM UTC

jordanpg wrote: post #5

pstuart wrote: post #4

I'm curious to see how this is defended by the party members here. Science should be guided by science, not ideology.

Unfortunately, these are agency rules. Congress can intervene, but only with major legislative action, which is unlikely. There will be hearings and Senators will express great concern, but the Administration will probably be able to do whatever they want. If anything slows this down, it will be the courts.

The courts have truly been the last line of defense.

Congress being neutered is not an accident, hopefully it will be less fucked if the power balance shifts.

And as the OP is inherently political in what it's calling out, that is not the motivation -- it's the science. I get the fact that in the end, everything's political but partisanship itself is a cancer on the body politic. Just as we seem to be in late-stage capitalism, we are entering late-stage democracy. It pains me that we effectively arrive here by choice.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#8

Post by rayiner » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:54 AM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #4

I'm curious to see how this is defended by the party members here. Science should be guided by science, not ideology.

The country runs on the principles of the constitution, not the institutional principles of science. Control over spending of taxpayer funds always must remain within the political system.

Voters can always choose to turn over those decisions to scientists they trust. For much of the 20th century, that’s what voters did. But if they don’t trust the priorities of the current scientific establishment, they can also choose to put that control back in the hands of political appointees. The institutional principles of science cannot override the prerogative of voters to decide how their money is spent.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#9

Post by esseph » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:58 AM UTC

pstuart wrote: post #7

jordanpg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, these are agency rules. Congress can intervene, but only with major legislative action, which is unlikely. There will be hearings and Senators will express great concern, but the Administration will probably be able to do whatever they want. If anything slows this down, it will be the courts.

The courts have truly been the last line of defense. Congress being neutered is not an accident, hopefully it will be less fucked if the power balance shifts. And as the OP is inherently political in what it's calling out, that is not the motivation -- it's the science. I get the fact that in the end, everything's political but partisanship itself is a cancer on the body politic. Just as we seem to be in late-stage c…

> hopefully it will be less fucked if the power balance shifts.

We are never going back to where we were. That is past us now. There is only forward.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#10

Post by rayiner » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:59 AM UTC

jordanpg wrote: post #5

pstuart wrote: post #4

I'm curious to see how this is defended by the party members here. Science should be guided by science, not ideology.

Unfortunately, these are agency rules. Congress can intervene, but only with major legislative action, which is unlikely. There will be hearings and Senators will express great concern, but the Administration will probably be able to do whatever they want. If anything slows this down, it will be the courts.

If Congress wants to earmark that money for a particular purpose it can enact that into legislation. If it wants to empower the executive to make the decision, they can do that too.

Those are the only people who get to decide. Congress can’t turn over the expenditure of taxpayer funds to people who aren’t politically accountable.