How is this different than adding DEI requirements, the inability to study schedule 1 drugs, or the restrictions placed under the Dickey-Wicker amendment?
Federal grants have always been subject to politics.
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
241–250 of 676 posts
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Government, and taxation/subsidies in general, have and always will be a tool to encourage one thing and discourage the other.
A lot of research won't be profitable for years to come or is even unlikely to be profitable at all, so you funding sources are limited. The government, having no profit motive, can encourage this kind of research by funding it. Typically the hope is that it'll lead to increased productivity or innovation down the line.
You don't have to be a statistician to see that not all groups of the populace are represented equally among scholars. If you want all viewpoints covered from you populace, wouldn't that mean you want to try and push for inclusion there? That doesn't mean everything has to be inclusive but you sure can incentivize it
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and no. I think the current Ebola outbreak would not be happening if the US was still committed to global health.
[flagged]
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/02/27/g-s1-...
Musk: “So, for example, with USAID, one of the things we accidentally canceled very briefly was Ebola prevention.”
“As of early February, the U.S. was not providing funding to support testing and port screenings in Uganda because of Trump's freeze on almost all U.S. foreign assistance.”
“Within USAID's Global Health Bureau there was a team of people that specialized in high risk outbreaks, like Ebola. "Virtually all of those people have been pushed out of the agency, and they have not been brought back. Only a very small handful — like low single digits — remain from what had been something like a 30 person team," says Jeremy Konyndyk, who oversaw USAID's response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak.”
“As for the role of the CDC, Spencer says what its officials can do is limited by Trump's order that the CDC not communicate with WHO.”
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#244If 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.
[dead]
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yes and no. I think the current Ebola outbreak would not be happening if the US was still committed to global health.
The Ebola virus is not simply a health issue but a cultural and eudcational "problem" too. There is a reason people eat bushmeat because 1, it's their culture 2, they would otherwise have nothing to eat especially not meat protein.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#246If 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.
That number is for the United States, not the United States government
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#247Earlier 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.
This idea that the only way a citizen can disagree what their government is doing is by voting on election day needs to die.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#248If 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.
Europe.
We fund science, research and we have accelerated programs for researchers affected by these kinds of things.
If you're interested, email me (see profile). I have been helping Americans emigrate to Europe (for free) for several years.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
You’re thinking tactically. I actually thing the democrats will try to put the Trumpist stuff back in the box. They may not be able to. The rule of law requires trust and that’s gone, and will only be rebuilt by time.
The reactionary Supreme Court has changed the character of the executive. That court will live for many years. The executive branch exists to represent the will of the chief executive. We’ve normalized criminal behavior with the abuse of pardons and crushed the institution of DOJ.
These guys opened a very stupid Pandora’s box. The long game is brutal. When we need to start dismantling the military, that’s going to impact some places pretty severely, for example. The science and tech edge will be gone in a decade.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean Vaccine researchers? Or renewable energy researchers?
oh, don't be coy. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/NSF-Terminated-Award... I wouldn't even need to cherry pick.
The first item on the list is 44M for quantum materials. Can you please explain why cancelling it is in the national interest of the US? Other than the fact that Harvard didn't admit Daddy's favorite boy?