So the US won the cold war and eventually decided to emulate their defeated opponent. It's quite a character arch.
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
331–340 of 676 posts
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#332> “The document would also ban…block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.” This is not just picking which ideas the government supports. This sounds like it’s taking all the “fun” out of having grant funding. Sure, that’s a flip remark, but doesn’t this have a similar sense of arguments against other government funded programs? ~SNAP food assistance is raising food prices~ [1] or ~SNAP…
Useless russian-troll-style argument:
- With no workers working, no worker fraud problem, sure. If you cut core scientific processes, politicize science, and destablize paycheck predictability enough to chase everyone good out of science, then yes any small amount of waste is also caught in the cuts.
- This seems to increase what you call bad "fun": Increases abuse of tax funding being corruptly given to projects advocated by political appointees despite rejection by scientific peer review. Vicious feedback loop.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#333Maybe 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…
Problem is that the current administration is ALSO going after 501c3s. They just changed the rules for reporting via 990 tax forms (that non-profits in the US use to report their activities) to make them far more detailed and require more details about where and how money is being spent. On the surface, most people read that and think "good, more information is better" but what ends up happening is that foundations and other large donors may shift the way they give due to the new ruling, which will leave huge swaths of non-profits without funding.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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…
Also, tickbox "I've considered this issue" questions which don't actually stop you from receiving grant funding with a team of middle aged, white male citizens from privileged educational backgrounds is not remotely the same as a clause enabling the administration to arbitrarily cancel your contract mid way through your project.
Especially not when said administration has a track record of cancelling things because they Ctrl-Fed outgroups they considered to be the enemy and discovered a completely irrelevant Latin prefix in someone's abstract.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#335Earlier 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 the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that Do you mean that the EU spends 1/10th that, rather than Europe ? Because France, Germany and the UK all spend €100-150bn each in grants depending on how you set your definition, and that’s atop the EU’s grant money. Just eyeballing the figures across different countries, it looks like the USG distributes approximately the same a…
On a gdp basis, which heavily favours the US, the US is not even the top dog. It's just above Belgium and below South Korea.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#336Don't worry, everybody. This will take some time to have an effect. In the meantime, the people who actually make this country great will consign these criminals to the dustbin of history. It happened in 1890, you will see it happen soon, and I am there for it. I just hope it happens faster this time. I don't have 40 years to wait.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#337Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#338Earlier 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…
Tell that to the people of Alabama who just had their primary election results cancelled
Just this week, the federal court that originally had the case ruled that the gerrymandered map was unconstitutional, using a theory totally separate from what the Supreme Court used to strike down the original ruling. So democracy's still got a little life in it.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#339Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
"You mispoke on that issue? No grant. You were of the wrong political perssuassion? No grant. Hurt the feelings of X group? No grant."
Are you talking about not getting the grant in the first place, or are you talking about grants being cancelled after they had been approved and you had taken the money and started doing the funded work?
Those two situations are different.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
A) this court has a number of originalists, more likely to reject grabs for power than more progressive judges. There's worse things than a court that tries to adhere to the constitution when the executive branch and Congress both routinely do not. B) do you really want to get to a place where the arbiters get politically reset and degraded every time the pendulum swings? This is the equivalent of a courtroom where a…
I strongly recommend everyone listen & consider Jamelle Bouie's The Supreme Court is Corrupt. This is What We Can Do About It.
https://youtu.be/hY279-A2fC4
The supreme court had a very limited role originally. And it's only by grants of Congress that they are allowed the staff, the ability to hear what cases they want to, and assorted other privileges. Beyond just packing the court, Congress could do a ton to rescind the power of these corrupt fiends who've gotten so far at tearing down the United States & gutting our nation, as they and their Leonard Leo/Federalist Society foes of America have lusted for for so long.
It's not just the Supreme Court either. Jamelle also effectively addresses so much of the incredibly vulgar court/judge shopping that makes a single judge North District of Texas such an incredibly popular and active venue, a political powerhouse that reliably will undo anything Federalist Society foes of America & government dislike. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kacsmaryk-judge-shopping-...