I still think we should allow for grant hunting. If you can disprove a paper, you get the grant money attached to it. Make it a economic worthy endavour to destroy bad science.
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
251–260 of 676 posts
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#252Earlier 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?
He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#253If 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.
[deleted]
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 his main point was that the art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.
Licking asses to get grants has been the full time job of tenured faculty for decades. Peer review just means they lick each other’s asses.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This is so wrong-headed of a statement that I’m actually shocked.
Do you even know how grants work?
You’re speaking about scoring designed to ensure that all Americans (any sex, poverty level, ability, creed) benefit from the use of tax payer money. This was a metric that was well understood AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED.
There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants.
Edit: less incendiary. I am just very upset with how confident people are saying things that are absolutely wrong for internet points.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hasn’t academia always been that way?
Generally, academia has always had a measure of bias to it. However the bias was never so blatant and never so against producing an environment where good research could feasibly be created. The vast majority of research is non political increments of existing non political increments where the main conflicts are personal beefs among flawed individual PIs and maybe being asked what fig leaf one offers to ensure that…
My point wasn’t bias but butt kissing. There is always butt kissing, and academia has some of the worst petty politics.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized The FDR coalition was literally southern segregationists , immigrants, and black people, all in the same party. If "hate and stupidity" wasn't a barrier to people voting together in their material self-interest in 1936, it sure as hell isn't a barrier in 2026.
Wow man, FDR twice in a week and both cases awkwardly used. But yes, he wielded populism masterfully. As you made a point about southern segregationists it should be noted that it was general economic populism without emphasis on race. When Johnson championed the Civil Rights act it set the stage for the Southern Strategy where once race was a top tier issue that hate and stupidity was weaponized to move all of those…
Your counterargument rests on the premise that nobody thought to weaponize "hate and stupidity" until the 1970s. That's not cogent.
> When Johnson championed the Civil Rights act it set the stage for the Southern Strategy
The concept of the “southern strategy” is not cogent. The backlash against the 1964 civil rights act happened in the 1968 election, when Wallace won 13% of the vote and 5 states. But all the Wallace states voted for Carter in 1976, along with all the other southern states besides Virginia. The south was Carter’s base—he only won the election by 2 points and lost New England, the midwest, and the west coast. Then three of the Wallace states voted for Clinton in 1992, plus several other southern states. Clinton also wouldn’t have won without the south. Your theory is that the reliable republican lean of the south states in the 1990s due to events that happened decades earlier. That’s a stupid idea.
The realignment instead lines up with the transition of southern economies from agricultural to industrial/services economies, i.e., the transition from “the south” to “the sunbelt.” That economic strategy is based on siphoning jobs from the northeast and midwest through low taxes and deregulation. That’s why Carter still won all the “solid south” (except Virginia) in 1976, and Clinton still won three of the five Wallace states in 1992. Virginia was the first southern state to transition to a sunbelt economy, followed by the piedmont south, with the deep south states like Louisiana and Kentucky trailing behind.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#258Maybe we need to strengthen civic/philanthropic infrastructure around Science and Technology to reduce reliance on government funding cycles. Science and Educational purposes are valid 501(c)(3) purposes. A donation to a 501(c)(3) that funds open-source scientific software, public STEM education, basic research, science grants, or public-interest tech research can be deductible. Up to 60% of Adjusted Gross Income can…
> would people here actually support or help design a 501(c)(3)-style vehicle for public-benefit science and technology funding?
Why a hypothetical? Plenty of options available to donate to or to contribute otherwise. Not help built it, help grow and maintain it.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
He's not commending it. He's using it to point out that the reaction, "Well, america had a good run i guess? Hope china can step up and fill the gap," is simplistic, hyperbolic and maybe a little hysterical.
Not sure how hysterical the notion that China is in ascendency on the world stage and the U.S. is retreating.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've always had the final say on issuing grants, but it was handled by career scientists rather than political appointees. Canceling grants in process is extremely rare. Since many of those grants concern science and tech it does seem relevant to this site.
True, but that is democracy for you.
It sure was.