Live data from Hacker News

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

211–220 of 676 posts

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

#211
post #209

[flagged]

> Also it really is sad to see “Hacker” News be “World News”. More Zig and less White House, please. I have been on this website for 17 years (ugh that's scary), and people have been posting variations of this remark the entire time. It's a tiresome sort of post the thousandth time. Politics have always been a consistent part of this website: it's a big part of the world that hackers live in, and barring rule enforce…

I will take an invite

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

#212

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#214
post #176

If you want to stay a scientist, you have to emigrate. The art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.

Emigrate where? And why do you assume that the country you're gonna emigrate to will have the funds necessay to fund the research? US grants are the biggest and most generous in the world. I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that. Other option is China but as a foreigner, you will never get a grant there unless you work for someone else.

>I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that

Way off, it's way closer, even if we're just talking EU. EU (the body) alone is about 200 billion/year. EU member states are like 1-1.5 trillion/year.

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

#215

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…

[flagged]

If someone is lying about what someone else did, it’s often either what they are doing or plan to do. It’s true in most situations and administrations, but objectively worse in the current. (Ignoring the whole marginalized vs anti-DEI arguments, which I consider SOP for a new administration with new goals.)

As well, any new rulings or laws that are designed to expire right before an election are almost always the mechanisms used for those abuses claimed as being perpetrated by others. And the number of things designed this way seem to be stacking up relatively quickly.

The reasoning is quite straightforward, “I want to make sure you can’t do the things I was just doing to you.” Otherwise there wouldn’t be a reason for policies that are good for everyone to expire at the end of a presidential term.

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

#216

[flagged]

Very sad to see Hacker News discussing science funding. This has nothing to do with the hacker ethos of maximizing corporate profit.

Yeah it is as if this website is by a VC.

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

#218
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most Americans, if polled, would prefer to be the global hub of scientific research, instead of an isolated silo of research that only follows a politically approved agenda.

They were polled, on election day. Most Americans want this, or didn't care enough to stop it. Potato, potahto.

I would guess that if you polled voters on election Day, and asked them why they voted for Trump, science funding wouldn't even come up as a topic. They would probably talk about high prices, or criminal aliens, or how they didn't like Harris.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> A law which will be used from the opposite side just as well, as soon as the power switches hands again.

This is the real test. If these changes are so bad, will someone campaign bare on overturning these? Will the “other side” change it?

If they don’t, you know that they also agreed with it - this handwringing now is just for show.

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

#220
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for most "someplace else", the choice is =$0 too.

You don't think the rest of the world is doing funded research?

Interestingly, if the US stopped spending you’d need the top 17 remaining countries to double their spending to absorb the American science industry. Doubling is a tall order and seventeen is a large number. Most likely fewer scientists will find employment in government funded academia if this came to be.
Post reply on HN