WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by rayiner » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:02 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #100

rayiner wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your comment suggests you think cronyism was in some part responsible for America's rise as a global power. Common sense would indicate that we became a power despite the cronyism, not because it, and you've provided nothing to support your wildly counter intuitive claim. This is your comment basically: People really need to read their history. When America definitively surpassed the UK in 1880 as the richest country…

> Your comment suggests you think cronyism was in some part responsible for America's rise as a global power.

Not at all. My comment was that America’s good run began a century before the 20th century practice of administration through independent experts. Thus, such administration cannot be a necessary condition for America’s “good run” as OP suggested.

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

#282

Post by kennywinker » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:02 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #228

coldtea wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with, independent of their checkboxes, was somehow undesirable

The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups. These policies exist to counteract the cronyism and “doesn’t look like me”-ism inherent to the way people make choices. We know people don’t hire and collaborate with the best of the best, because when looking for the best they see it easiest in people with similar backgrounds and perspectives as themselves.

It’s a shame the culture war cooked your brain on this one.

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

#283

Post by foldr » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:03 PM UTC

mavelikara wrote: post #219

coldtea wrote: post #212

Earlier 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.

That’s not a test of whether the changes are bad; it’s a test of the Democrats’ character. We know the changes are bad. If subsequent administrations do nothing to reverse them, then they are bad too.

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

#284

Post by mhalle » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:03 PM UTC

softwaredoug wrote: post #232

The thing about this is it’s incredibly easy for a denied institution to claim legal standing to challenge the governments scientific funding decisions. The institutions that get funds (universities) are well resourced. Society in general seems gradually less tolerant of trying to appease Trump - so they will likely sue instead of appease. So they’ll be sued. The theories will be tested and we’ll see exactly where th…

As the article says, legal action up to this point has been based on the fact that the government created policies that didn't follow its own rules under, for example, the Administrative Procedures Act.

So now the administration is attempting to follow those rules to create these new procedures, which they believe will then be lawful.

If they are successful, challenges would have to be made judicially based on non-procedural grounds, or through Congress.

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

#285

Post by rayiner » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:04 PM UTC

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #155

rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier 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.

And where do you see common grounds material self-interest shaping todays political landscape? People need a shared narrative of eg. a problem to solve, to come together. The right wing narrative today is deliberatetly targeted against any imaginary enemy, that does not subscribe to the narrative, which excludes/targets basically all left leaning people, all out groups. With this tribalistic setup in the centre, comm…

> And where do you see common grounds material self-interest shaping todays political landscape

You’d think democrats would come up with a compelling one.

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

#286

Post by ipaddr » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:04 PM UTC

mlazos wrote: post #268

somenameforme wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ah, the ever present “nothing to see here” take. What this government is doing is worse than it’s ever been. At least before when you had your grant it wouldn’t be randomly cancelled at any time.

But it would/could be. That's the broader point before it was hidden now its not. Poltical entities need to accept the current state or rewrite rules that benefit all.

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

#287

Post by JKCalhoun » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #279

JKCalhoun wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how hysterical the notion that China is in ascendency on the world stage and the U.S. is retreating.

Implying that this particular story ("WH proposes rules") is the final piece of evidence that might cause a reasonable person to conclude that the US is finished as world power does strike me as maybe a little hysterical. If someone has an extremely simplistic view of how our society works and where our power comes from, then it is regrettable for that someone to even offer a prediction in public about whether our so…

Final piece of evidence? Of course not. But it's part of a stream of news for some time now that points in the same direction.

(And I have no idea why Rayiner was downvoted. I'm happy for them though—for sticking to principles and posting what may well be downvoted to oblivion. It's something I have become more comfortable with myself.)

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

#288

Post by filoeleven » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:07 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #249

mavelikara wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[flagged]

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

#289

Post by ipaddr » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:08 PM UTC

rand_r wrote: post #280

hvb2 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> all viewpoints covered from you populace This is the core of the issue. We don’t actually want all viewpoints represented because that wouldn’t by itself produce any value. You want someone to come up with the fundamental theorems of Calculus, linking the area of a curve with its anti-derivative, because that’s incredibly useful. Generically grabbing everyone’s view isn’t a competitive strategy. You need to be sele…

But the research becomes how much coffee can someone drink before it's unhealthy type studies.

The study you mention can be founded with pen and paper. No expensive trials or heavy equipment or team needed.

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

#290

Post by dgacmu » Sat, May 30, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #228

coldtea wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

One of the explicit goals of the NSF is to train the next generation of scientists. Part of that is making sure that you're creating a rich pipeline of people who are going to do innovative things. Broadening participation is much more about things like getting more (usually younger) people from all walks of life interested in joining your field. Which is basically an unmitigated good -- first, the obvious advantage that having more people who want to be in a field is good for it from the perspective of choosing the best folks. And second, the less obvious but perhaps more important thing that people with different perspectives often end up thinking about problems differently. It's not nearly as helpful to have 1000 people all focused on chasing the same problems with the same toolbox of solutions as it is to have 1000 people focused on different problems with different ideas of how to approach them.

I say this as a professor at a top computer science department. I have _never_ felt limited in my ability to collaborate with the best folks in my area. Ever. I do! And it's great! And I also believe strongly it's important to make sure we are growing those next generations of amazing people, because the thing that makes research awesome is working with them.