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

321–330 of 676 posts

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

#321

Post by shaftoe »

mcphage wrote: post #292
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.

> 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.

Pretty sure the right generally believes the left has been doing the same.

Previously, it was a more libertarian and constitutional argument: progressive causes since the new deal have assumed powers not granted.

More recently this has completely flipped to a populist culture war argument that the left, in excesses seen in the DEI hayday before COVID, has lost its mind and began attacking and punishing people.

My point isn't to argue "no you" but to instead invalidate your point about lessons and outcomes. The centers of these two tribes exist in separate realities and experiences. Escalating is unlikely to have the effect of bringing those perspectives together.

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

#322

Post by amazingamazing »

dgellow wrote: post #308
amazingamazing wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

you have strong opinions about this place for someone who joined less than 2 years ago... In my >13y active on HN I can tell you politics has always been present. It's just more likely for political topics to end up in flamewar, meaning they will get down ranked quickly. In general those stories don't stay long in the front page

I have been here longer than you. I just rotate accounts after around 1000 karma (this account will be thrown away too soon)

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

#323

Post by jrmg »

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…

You’re thinking tactically.

All tactics, no strategy is the way of things currently - on the right especially, but on the left to some extent too. It’s maddening.

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

#324

Post by Ar-Curunir »

ipaddr wrote: post #286
mlazos wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ask any scientists, and you will find that no, grants weren’t being cancelled randomly, and no, scientists were living in fear of that.

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

#325

Post by jLaForest »

libertine wrote: post #198
ChrisLTD wrote: post #186

It’s sad to watch my country commit suicide. Not only will my compatriots be poorer for it, but the rest of the world will be too.

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…

Tell that to the people of Alabama who just had their primary election results cancelled

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

#326

Post by dgellow »

amazingamazing wrote: post #322
dgellow wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have strong opinions about this place for someone who joined less than 2 years ago... In my >13y active on HN I can tell you politics has always been present. It's just more likely for political topics to end up in flamewar, meaning they will get down ranked quickly. In general those stories don't stay long in the front page

I have been here longer than you. I just rotate accounts after around 1000 karma (this account will be thrown away too soon)

If that's the case how are you confused by the content in HN front-page?

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

#327

Post by gwerbin »

folkrav wrote: post #247
footy wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the same old "vote with your dollar/feet" solecism, applied to politics.

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

#328

Post by insane_dreamer »

I'm very involved in obtaining and performing on gov grants, and I can say pretty categorically the US is going from the best place to do science, to possibly the worst (in developed democratic countries). And we're only 1.5 years into this shit show.

(Unless you're doing science for military development. Then the funding spigot is open.)

And to those who say "oh, it's the same as it was before, just different ideologies" -- no, it is not at all the same. Not even comparable.

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

#329

Post by gwerbin »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #277
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They voted for a massive grab-bag of obviously bad stuff. They may not have examined every single item in it, but they obviously wanted this style of bad stuff to happen. This action is aligned with their revealed preferences.

That was kind of my point. They actively voted for a lot of bad stuff, but it was framed in a very different way. They voted for things like ending the tyranny of woke liberalism, and believe that end is so essential to achieve that it justifies essentially abandoning the rule of law. What they did not vote for is the long-term consequences of supporting that position.

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

#330

Post by Ar-Curunir »

somenameforme wrote: post #228
coldtea wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Broader Impacts sections can be quite, well broad.

You can put in there standard things like “we will design new grad and undergrad courses that train new students in this tech that we will develop”.

You can put wider-impact things like “we will partner with local community colleges to integrate the results of this research in their XYZ course”, or “we will design summer research programs with recruitment from community colleges”.

And yes, you can (or used to be able to) include things like “we will partner with high schools with high populations of underrepresented demographics to do outreach and involve students in research”.

Clearly, there’s a large variety of things that fall under broader impact, and scientists weren’t required to pick only the “wokest” policies.

Please don’t comment on things you don’t know much about.

Post reply on HN