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

#371

Post by sbayg » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

bayarearefugee wrote: post #47

quantum_state wrote: post #24

It would spell the start of major corruption and the end of American sciences. God, please do something about it!

Not exactly the start of major corruption. The Trump 2.0 administration was already easily the most corrupt in American history well before these rules were proposed. To their credit(?) they don't even try to hide it, they are just fully corrupt out in the open, because they know the cultists who support them will support anything they do.

It’s always the poor and uneducated voters that get the blame. It’s never the actual billionaires who got Trump elected and who control everything he does and much of the media zeitgeist because, you know, 100s of billions can really flood the zone. I don’t think you’re evil for being fooled, but try to think a bit deeper about where power and blame lie. It’s not uneducated rural folk the median yuppie finds uncool.

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

#372

Post by cindyllm » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

sbayg wrote: post #371

bayarearefugee wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly the start of major corruption. The Trump 2.0 administration was already easily the most corrupt in American history well before these rules were proposed. To their credit(?) they don't even try to hide it, they are just fully corrupt out in the open, because they know the cultists who support them will support anything they do.

It’s always the poor and uneducated voters that get the blame. It’s never the actual billionaires who got Trump elected and who control everything he does and much of the media zeitgeist because, you know, 100s of billions can really flood the zone. I don’t think you’re evil for being fooled, but try to think a bit deeper about where power and blame lie. It’s not uneducated rural folk the median yuppie finds uncool.

[dead]

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

#373

Post by xp84 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #315

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…

I would say this is exactly where you want that kind of policy. At the bottom, where you’re cultivating what will end up at the top. You want the diversity of ideas for exactly the reasons you stated. People get upset as though this policy is dictating that a minority from the corner of the earth with no meaningful experience is going to be mandated into the role of heart surgeon or airplane pilot as well. That’s not…

I don’t really disagree with the closing quip about those guys’ (lack of) qualifications. But I think what upsets a lot of people (including me) is that if you’re Asian or white, and male, graduating with a 4.5 and doing literally everything right, the Democrats tell us it’s virtuous to have a quota system screen you out of the most competitive schools so that someone of an “underrepresented” race/gender expression, someone who has not achieved the same, can get in.

It was idiotic to squander the talent of the best and brightest Black people that way 75 years ago, and it’s just as idiotic to use race and gender as a factor in admissions or employment today.

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

#374

Post by kristjansson » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

shaftoe wrote: post #311

filoeleven wrote: post #288

Earlier 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…

Option C is, yknow, pass law (and ratify amendments) s.t. the interpretive power of the court is less of a factor

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

#375

Post by throwawaypath » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #206

vonneumannstan wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean Vaccine researchers? Or renewable energy researchers?

oh, don't be coy. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/NSF-Terminated-Award... I wouldn't even need to cherry pick.

Some of those titles look so satirical it's difficult to believe they're real:

Culture Change for Inclusion of Indigenous Voices in Biology

Strengthening Inclusion by Change in Building Equity, Diversity and Understanding (SICBEDU) in Integrative Biology

An Equitable, Justice-Focused Ecosystem for Pacific Northwest Secondary CS [Computer Science] Teaching

Great to read these are being defunded.

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

#376

Post by pstuart » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #257

pstuart wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow man, FDR twice in a week and both cases awkwardly used. But yes, he wielded populism masterfully. As you made a point about southern segregationists it should be noted that it was general economic populism without emphasis on race. When Johnson championed the Civil Rights act it set the stage for the Southern Strategy where once race was a top tier issue that hate and stupidity was weaponized to move all of those…

Your counterargument rests on the premise that nobody thought to weaponize "hate and stupidity" until the 1970s. That's not cogent. > When Johnson championed the Civil Rights act it set the stage for the Southern Strategy The concept of the “southern strategy” is not cogent. The backlash against the 1964 civil rights act happened in the 1968 election, when Wallace won 13% of the vote and 5 states. But all the Wallace…

[flagged]

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

#377

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

swed420 wrote: post #353

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exagg…

> One big difference is that the US has been led by four different people since 2000 instead of one. But those four puppets served the same ruling class interests, and they manufactured consent for each other the whole time.

What do you mean by "manufactured consent for each other the whole time"? I'm familiar with the Noam Chomsky book Manufacturing Consent, but this book was about the dynamics that shape coverage decisions in mass media, not some concrete process which Person X could perform "for" Person Y.

I also struggle to see how it can be that different Presidents with often directly contradictory policies could both be serving the same ruling class interests. If the funding rules for scientific grants are changing, and defenders of the old rules argue that this is a terrible change that will cause huge problems, how can it be that both the old rules and the new rules serve the same interests?

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

#378

Post by 9dev » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

amazingamazing wrote: post #229

bix6 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. I think the current Ebola outbreak would not be happening if the US was still committed to global health.

The world should be more independent and self sufficient. It will be better in the long run.

To what goal? USAID and similar programs always had the indirect benefit of opening up foreign markets to the USA. It's just short-sighted out of sheer economic considerations - and that's ignoring the ridiculous recklessness of pulling the rug under millions of people. Hundreds of thousands have died due to the USAID cuts; those deaths could have been prevented by approaching this in a more professional manner.

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

#379

Post by adampunk » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:13 PM UTC

gwerbin wrote: post #329

chadgpt3 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What?! They most certainly did vote for those consequences! Why infantilize these voters? Nobody robbed them of the agency needed to see that an obvious criminal tyrant was worse than a woman, twice. They just didn't care. It's ugly and depressing to imagine them not caring about things that matter to them intimately, but here we all are.

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

#380

Post by notahacker » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #344

notahacker wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Yeah, me pointing out the people exactly like me totally can and do fill in boxes like this and secure grants is totally "insulting a race and sex". I thought it was supposed to be the libs who were grievance mongers desperate to feel discriminated against...

Honestly, if filling in those boxes with anything other than a diatribe against the suitability of women and minorities and poor people to do research is "following the politics of one party" now, that says more about the conformance demanded by the other party than the science. Good to hear you're much happier now they're in charge and introducing formal komissar roles to ensure that any studies whose results contradict RFK Lysenko Jr or reference transgenic mice or Transjordan or employ too many research assistants with funny foreign names are liable to be defunded before publication.