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

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 676 posts

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

#31

Post by rayiner »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #23
rayiner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Congress can’t turn over the expenditure of taxpayer funds to people who aren’t politically accountable. If Congress doesn't stop the executive and the Supreme Court overrules any legal blockades then ... I guess they can and are doing so RN.

> Congress doesn't stop the executive

Congress won't stop the executive because the party that won the executive also won Congress by almost 4 million votes. That's not a sign of the system not working, it's a sign of the system working as intended.

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

#32

Post by pstuart »

esseph wrote: post #9
pstuart wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We are very much in uncharted waters and the rules have been thrown out the window. At the risk of repeating myself, wherever we are it is effectively collectively by choice. It's all about hearts and minds, but really hearts. I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized (I'm a slow learner), but hopefully that can be outnumbered.

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

#33

Post by noobermin »

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.

American moderates are amazing. "Let's see how suburban republicans feel about this that Trump has done! He's really spoiled his chances next election!" You guys have been waiting for the non-fascist republican voter for more than a decade at this point.

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

#35

Post by unclebucknasty »

rayiner wrote: post #26
quantum_state wrote: post #24

It would spell the start of major corruption and the end of American sciences. God, please do something about it!

You don't need God's intervention. If you trust the scientific establishment to make decisions on how to allocate taxpayer dollars, then vote for an executive who promises to do that. Definitely don't vote for the guy who campaigned on taking discretion away from unelected bureaucrats.

Many of us did vote for sane ideas, like allowing scientists to make decisions about science. For instance, we knew RFK Jr would be a disaster and here we are, dealing with a resurgence of preventable diseases.

In fact, "unelected bureaucrats" have been the key to whatever degree of success this democracy has enjoyed. Politicizing everything replaces non-partisan expertise with political loyalty and favoritism. It's a direct path to the destruction of critical institutions, undermining the public trust, and authoritarianism.

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

#36

Post by smohare »

Georgelemental wrote: post #30
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.

Science is a tool. It does not "guide", no more than a hammer guides.

[dead]

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

#38

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #22
jordanpg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lovely thought but it assumes, as with so many other things about our republican form of government, that the political appointees are good faith actors, at least with respect to funding of science. There are many reasons to suspect that the goal here is not just control of funding, but the defenestration of science more broadly because scientific findings tend to conflict with assertions politicians would l…

> That's a lovely thought but it assumes, as with so many other things about our republican form of government, that the political appointees are good faith actors, at least with respect to funding of science. It doesn't assume that. It's simply a factual matter that the rules that govern the country are those of the constitution. And the institutional principles of particular fields are subordinate to the constituti…

And when they made Islam official religion of Bangladesh in the constitution, what’s your take on that?

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

#39

Post by stirfish »

Georgelemental wrote: post #30
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.

Science is a tool. It does not "guide", no more than a hammer guides.

The form of a tool guides its use. You can tell what a hammer is for just by picking one up.

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

#40

Post by rayiner »

pstuart wrote: post #32
esseph wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We are very much in uncharted waters and the rules have been thrown out the window. At the risk of repeating myself, wherever we are it is effectively collectively by choice. It's all about hearts and minds, but really hearts. I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized (I'm a slow learner), but hopefully that can be outnumbered.

> I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized

The FDR coalition was literally southern segregationists, immigrants, and black people, all in the same party. If "hate and stupidity" wasn't a barrier to people voting together in their material self-interest in 1936, it sure as hell isn't a barrier in 2026.

Post reply on HN