Wait, wasn't that post revolution USSR / Mao's China ? Or in their words, only correct science is "Marxist" science
When Republicans start proposing Communist policies, they are MAGA, not Republicans.
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
41–50 of 676 posts
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#42Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#43And a generation of young scientists starts packing their bags...
To where?
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#44Earlier 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.
Pick one, it’s by choice or by hope, not both.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[dead]
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#46I'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.
I get a research grant after peer review. The grant funds my salary and propels my career. I criticize Trump publicly about his graft. Trump tells them to pull my grant. My career takes a hit, and I lose my house.
Or I can be a chickenshit, and praise Trump and have a career, however pathetic. I routinely ask them to approve my results before publishing, just in case. I apply for grants looking at vaccines and autism. Every Friday, I spend an hour talking about how Trump is America's chosen one.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#47It would spell the start of major corruption and the end of American sciences. God, please do something about it!
Not exactly the start of major corruption.
The Trump 2.0 administration was already easily the most corrupt in American history well before these rules were proposed.
To their credit(?) they don't even try to hide it, they are just fully corrupt out in the open, because they know the cultists who support them will support anything they do.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#48Earlier 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…
It seems like your argument is proving way too much. If next President announces that he feels rural hospitals are an inefficient use of resources, and so all residency programs outside of major metro areas are cancelled, would you accept that as a legitimate use of funding discretion? To me it would sound like an obvious campaign of retribution against groups he finds it politically convenient to punish. (A campaign of retribution I will happily support, if Trump gets away with things like this - but I'd prefer to avoid going down that road!)
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#49Earlier 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…
You seem to be forgetting that one man is making these calls, not the people.