Live data from Hacker News

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

111–120 of 676 posts

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

#111
post #105

This means research projects will be optimised for political boasting. Sounds terrible, but is it? It incentivises high-impact research (otherwise politicians can't boast about it), and less research into trivialities that common sense says aren't worth the public funding.

No, it incentivizes research that is aligned with the current administration's political ideologies.

> common sense says aren't worth the public funding

who is deciding what is "common sense"?

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

#112
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

You start your comment with "False", but then fail to provide any actual evidence for why it's false.

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

#114
post #92
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The spoils system… > contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted based on a measure of merit, independent of political activity. What is commendable about this? Why should anyone who isn’t close enough with political winners to get the spoils want this?

[deleted]

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

#117

It seems seeding chaos is the only thing these guys know how to do. What happens (or happened) when the shoe is on the other foot and the other guy wants to push climate science and vaccines? Run to Texas courts to stop the federal government? Thereby wasting lot of time doing nothing. I can only say Bravo to Americans who think this constant fighting is somehow going to help the country.

I think we all need to be honest with ourselves about the fact that they are very clearly not intending to ever allow the shoe to be on the other foot. The upcoming midterms are very plausibly the last free and fair elections we will ever have in this country. As deeply unpopular as this administration is right now, the Democrats will need an enormous amount of luck for the size of historic landslide it will require…

If a conviction really happens wouldn't the very fine people just invade the capitol again?

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

#118
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Perhaps if we'd had "unelected bureaucrats" in the 1800s, we would have done even better? Hard to say, really.

We had all these "unelected bureaucrats" post-WWII, and we did quite well in the following decades.

Scientists and academics fleeing the US is a new phenomenon, driven in no small part by these "unelected bureaucrats" being fired and replaced by political loyalists.

While you're correct in saying that we had lots of success before the establishment of the administrative state, it doesn't then follow that we'd have more (or better) success by abolishing it now. It seems like the opposite is slowly becoming true.

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

#119
post #85
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I wasn't quite clear there. That's what I meant, that Lenin is the one who took the "emergency powers until communism is established" interpretation of "dictatorship of the proletariat", and turned it into "all the powers until forever". But that interpretation is effectively what became synonymous with communism just about everywhere — the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea... Curiously enough none of the Communist states ever really transitioned from that intermediate state to full communism.

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all need to be honest with ourselves about the fact that they are very clearly not intending to ever allow the shoe to be on the other foot. The upcoming midterms are very plausibly the last free and fair elections we will ever have in this country. As deeply unpopular as this administration is right now, the Democrats will need an enormous amount of luck for the size of historic landslide it will require…

If a conviction really happens wouldn't the very fine people just invade the capitol again?

Or Trump himself would simply refuse to step down, and have the might of the U.S. military brass behind him.

If you can’t tell, I am not hopeful.

Post reply on HN