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

341–350 of 676 posts

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

#341

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

jrmg wrote: post #323
Spooky23 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems to me that the right wingers have a pretty detailed strategy as you can see with Project 2025. I don’t see anything similar on the left wing. I think it’s pretty crazy that even with the current chaos the democrats still aren’t able to craft a coherent message why people should vote FOR them instead of just voting against the republicans. They look purely reactive. No clear message on health care, no message on affordability. Just nothing. And on the local level the message seems to be “have sympathy for the guy who broke your car window and popped in your yard”.

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

#342

Post by gammarator »

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

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

You are misreading how Broader Impacts (BI) works. From your link:

> Some examples that illustrate contributions in each of the five areas are given below. Proposals need not address all of these areas, and PIs are advised to focus on those areas in which they are well prepared to make meaningful contributions.

"Broadening participation of underrepresented groups" is only one of the five areas, and no proposal was required to use it. I had proposals funded that focused on workforce development, for example. I saw others focus on science communication to the public (now forbidden in the memo this post is about!).

Proposals that passed grant panels were first and foremost always those that would great science. At ~10:1 oversubscription rates or more, proposals don't pass without it. The BI component needed to be credible but could be handled lots of ways.

Fundamentally, Congress recognized when defining BI as a component for merit review in the NSF that fundamental science only pays off in the long term. BI is a pragmatic choice to ensure that grants also yield near-term benefits to society as well.

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

#343

Post by xtiansimon »

lmeyerov wrote: post #332
xtiansimon wrote: post #182

> “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 adv…

> "Useless russian-troll-style argument"

Surprise! I'm just a middle-age American reading HN with his coffee trying to wrap my head around the topic. I don't think this remark helps anyone understand your argument. Doth protest too much.

I'm wondering if you're focused on the "approved" science, and missing the idea this corruption is riding on the back of even a "small amount of waste", and an overall rejection of scientific activities in the face of the replication crisis. All part of the schism of your facts and our facts insanity.

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

#344

Post by izacus »

notahacker wrote: post #334
dgacmu wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Now that's double standard here, isn't it? Putting up questions on forms that require you to reveal your political pole and follow the politics of one party to answer isn't really kosher in any academic environment.

Trying to reframe them as "we didn't REALLY mean it!" (while also insulting a race and sex) doesn't help your case.

This is what the communist leads of universities did here in eastern europe and it was disgusting back then as well.

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

#345

Post by cucumber3732842 »

gammarator wrote: post #342
somenameforme wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are misreading how Broader Impacts (BI) works. From your link: > Some examples that illustrate contributions in each of the five areas are given below. Proposals need not address all of these areas, and PIs are advised to focus on those areas in which they are well prepared to make meaningful contributions. "Broadening participation of underrepresented groups" is only one of the five areas, and no proposal was re…

>is only one of the five areas, and no proposal was required to use it.

Irrespective of whatever was going on in academia I take issue with this. Everyone who has a) a double digit number of brain cells b) has ever dealt with government approval in any capacity c) is't just a straight up liar knows that if the requirements set forth by a panel with discretionary authority says to do items 1-5 that you will not be approved without doing all of them, (unless of course you have the right last name or connections).

If you don't believe me watch any local board's meetings for the next 6mo and research everyone who comes before it after finding what outcome they got.

This has nothing to do with academia, DEI or what the other items on the list of requirements were. This is just how the sausage is made. It's all the same steps even if some factories are a little dirtier than others. So yeah, I 100% believe that if someone unconnected didn't pay the right lip service to the right things in every single one of the items in the list they would not get the outcome they wanted even if theoretically their stuff could have been approved with only 4/5 boxes checked. The approvers are not going to stick their necks out like that with no reason.

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

#346

Post by gammarator »

bhokbah wrote: post #205
Jerry2 wrote: post #176

Earlier 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.

1/10th? US: $848B (2024) EU: $508B (2024) --- UK: $102B (2023) Switzerland: $22B (2023) Norway: $8.2B (2024) OECD "Gross domestic spending on R&D"

"R&D" is not the same as "grants supporting fundamental science."

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

#347

Post by convolvatron »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #324
ipaddr wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

many scientists were annoyed at having to add some boilerplate to basic research about social impacts of their work. would any of them prefer the 'corrective action' of cancelling research based on political animosity towards the host institution or general dislike of academia at all?

its apples and ebola

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

#348

Post by evrydayhustling »

gwerbin wrote: post #168

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…

Besides the brutal impact on those already invested in the American research community, this is one more nail in the coffin when it comes to competing for new talent. What researcher in their right mind would move their research and their future to the USA to join this clown rodeo?

It is unbelievable to watch my country give up its most unfair (and yet mostly positive) advantage -- a nearly free option on the top talent of the entire planet. Here's hoping that the increasingly multipolar research world can find ways to be even more efficient in creating new knowledge.

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

#349

Post by IncreasePosts »

consp wrote: post #335
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Absolute values would favor the US, not a percent of gdp.
Post reply on HN