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

81–90 of 676 posts

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

#81

Post by rayiner »

FireBeyond wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #22

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. 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's simply a factual matter that the rules that govern the country are those of the constitution. How many times has this administration blatantly ignored the Constitution, starting with, for a simple example, separation of powers? You're all locked in on "scientists should be beholden to the government, as that is the lay and law of the land" which ignoring the rather large mote that is "this current government c…

It's never a valid argument to say that we should ignore the law in one context because someone isn't following the law in a completely different context.

The question of whether scientists should have independence from the political system in deciding how to spend taxpayer funds is one that can be answered entirely starting from the principles of our republican government, without any consideration of what else the current administration may or may not be doing.

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

#84

Post by srean »

whatshisface wrote: post #76

This may seem extreme, but it must be considered in the full context of the package of policy proposals that would also eliminate the grants themselves. This balances out any concerns of bias. See you in 50 years when we read about the consequences (on European electronics.) :')

Europe needs to get it's shit together. It has very not been together.

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

#85

Post by defrost »

pdpi wrote: post #78
fnordpiglet wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither cited countries are/were communist, they are authoritarian. That’s the political system of government, capitalism and communism is the economic system.

The two aren’t independent. Marx’s idea of communism required a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Lenin took that notion and, under the pretence of needing absolute power to prevent a counter-revolution, turned it into the totalitarian regime of the USSR. Since then, communism and totalitarianism have gone hand in hand.

With the aside that most of this bored me stupid 40 years past and still does today ...

Marx's "dictatorship" as used by Marx back in the days of late nights in the British Libraries wasn't the authoritarian "dictatorship" we associate with the term today.

  In the 19th century, the term "dictatorship" did not yet have the modern connotation of an authoritarian, autocratic one-man rule. Its meaning was derived from the ancient Roman dictatura, a constitutionally sanctioned office for a magistrate granted extraordinary powers during an emergency. For Marx and Engels, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not a specific form of government but a term for the class content of the state that would follow a proletarian revolution.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletaria...

Sure, Lenin had a hard on for authoritarian behaviour and started the USSR trend of dangling a communist utopia as a reward for grinding through petty nitpicking committees and even more hard core authoritarians .. but that's more the bait and switch of human greed than any necessary coupling of communes and boot first hierarchies.

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

#87

Post by idiotsecant »

rayiner wrote: post #82
spacedoutman wrote: post #66

Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap.

[flagged]

Wow, it's not often that you get to see someone unironically defend cronyism and nepotism as a goal to be reached rather than a cancer to be eradicated. I guess it really does take all strokes.

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

#88

Post by soerxpso »

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" can do as much science as it wants on its own dime then. Public funding should be guided by public oversight, not career bureaucrats.

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

#90

Post by idiotsecant »

The natural state of all human political systems is autocracy. It takes constant vigilance to keep the train on the tracks and avoid that low energy state. The problem is that we only really see the consequences of these kinds of immensely stupid policies once every few generations. Nobody alive was around the last time we had this argument, so we get to do it all over again.
Post reply on HN