Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 676 posts

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

#291

Post by flohofwoe »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #269
libertine wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it could be worse because in the end it's still a democracy, for how long that's yet to be seen. Look at Russia, they jumped off a cliff to protect a regime from democracy, and people are checked out - they take no accountability and still act confused of why Russia is being despised - all while accelerating economic and demographic decline with more than one million casualties in a special 3 day military operat…

Russia is a de-jure democracy, just like the US. In fact I'm not sure what difference there is between them.

Captain Obvious here, but the number of defenestrations (or generally mysterious "suicides" of people not agreeing enough with the government) is much higher in Russia than in the US.

In the US you might get your funds cancelled, in Russia you'll get your life cancelled instead - and not in the metaphorical sense.

Also as incompetent as the current US government is, the incompetence of the Russian government is on a whole different level (the "3 days to Kyiv" are taking longer than the whole "Great Patriotic War").

> Russia is a de-jure democracy

As is North Korea, it must be even more democratic than the rest of the world because it calls itself "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ;)

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

#292

Post by mcphage »

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.

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

No, the left should use the things right broke to abuse the right—just like the right is breaking everything to abuse the left. Otherwise the right will never learn why breaking things is a bad idea, and they’ll just keep on breaking everything like they have been for my entire life and before.

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

#293

Post by btown »

ninjagoo wrote: post #234

Maybe 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…

Arguably, these vehicles do exist... in the form of 501(c)(3) university endowments. They endow professorships and graduate fellowships, pay for facility buildouts and infrastructure, and provide a strong pipeline of financial aid to allow talented undergraduates to pursue research rather than needing to repay debt immediately after graduation. And unused funds are invested in public and private markets, ensuring minimal waste and sustainable capital growth. And non-profit universities have strong and time-tested governance rules on many if not all of the dimensions specified.

But these very endowments have been special cased as additionally taxable, despite that status, under the 2025 OBBBA, resulting in research budget cuts [0].

Would independent endowments as you describe them be more immune?

[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/college-endowment-tax...

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

#294

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #269
libertine wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it could be worse because in the end it's still a democracy, for how long that's yet to be seen. Look at Russia, they jumped off a cliff to protect a regime from democracy, and people are checked out - they take no accountability and still act confused of why Russia is being despised - all while accelerating economic and demographic decline with more than one million casualties in a special 3 day military operat…

Russia is a de-jure democracy, just like the US. In fact I'm not sure what difference there is between them.

One big difference is that the US has been led by four different people since 2000 instead of one. Another big difference is that it's legal for Americans to insult political leaders, wish bad things upon them, or demand an end to their stupid wars.

If you weren't aware of these differences, I'd encourage you to radically change your media diet; there are unfortunately many outlets which find it advantageous to exaggerate how bad the US is and deemphasize how bad dictatorships are. (Some are paid Russian propaganda, I've seen a shocking number of people send me RT links as though they're a legitimate news source.)

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

#295

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #67
selimthegrim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when they made Islam official religion of Bangladesh in the constitution, what’s your take on that?

My take is that they shed their blood to have their own nation and they're entitled to structure their affairs however they please. It that's also what precipitated my family to leave. Just because Bangladeshis have the right of self determination doesn't mean we have to or want to live in a country with them.

So you don't consider yourself Bangladeshi anymore?

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

#297

Post by petcat »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #269
libertine wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it could be worse because in the end it's still a democracy, for how long that's yet to be seen. Look at Russia, they jumped off a cliff to protect a regime from democracy, and people are checked out - they take no accountability and still act confused of why Russia is being despised - all while accelerating economic and demographic decline with more than one million casualties in a special 3 day military operat…

Russia is a de-jure democracy, just like the US. In fact I'm not sure what difference there is between them.

USA has had 3 different presidents from opposing parties just in the last 15 years. Putin hasn't allowed a challenger in nearly 30 years and he actively bans them, imprisons them, or kills them. It's a big difference.

> I'm not sure what difference there is between them.

Good hyperbole

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

#298

Post by parineum »

kennywinker wrote: post #282
somenameforme wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

> The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups

If there are no martian biologists because of systemic discrimination, why would the best if the best biologists include a martian.

The argument defeats itself. I don't understand why people keep repeating this lie instead of the truth.

The only way this makes sense is if you think the only way someone can be inspired by someone else is if they look the same.

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

#299

Post by softwaredoug »

mhalle wrote: post #284
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-pr…

Yes, but even following APA, the order doesn't have the strength of statute.

They can follow APA to come up with all kinds of illegal rules. And the actual rules are so broad they could be used from anything sane to something that might be just political revenge.

The actual language:

> “As part of the merit review process, Federal agencies must perform pre-issuance reviews to ensure that Federal award proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest.”

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

#300

Post by ninjagoo »

47282847 wrote: post #258
ninjagoo wrote: post #234

Maybe 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.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN