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

391–400 of 676 posts

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

#391

Post by wisemanwillhear »

gammarator wrote: post #358

Here's a more concise summary of the proposed changes: https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-change... I don't think any practicing scientist of any political persuasion will think these are good for science. Science progresses by sharing knowledge openly and publicly, so others can evaluate it, criticize it, and build on it. These severe restrictions on collaboration, publication, and public communic…

Why does science need to be through the government? Irrespective of the proposal, science research is just as open after this change as before so long as it's funded by private citizens who can control the channels through which they donate to this work.

On the other hand, if we can't get private citizens to donate to science research, then they are not likely to vote for it either--polls don't register much of a concern from the average citizen*. I don't think most of us want to be under a dictator or go back to having a king.

That means the only practical option is to act of our own volition and support science through vocal advocacy and private money. In this way, we can each donate to the research we care about the most with maximum academic freedom.

* https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.asp...

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

#392

Post by platevoltage »

m0llusk wrote: post #225
tempodox wrote: post #163

If you want to stay a scientist, you have to emigrate. The art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.

There is a lot of private funding available with a broad range of targets and boundaries.

If we aren't funding progress with our tax dollars then what are we even doing?

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

#393

Post by expedition32 »

Imagine being in the eye of the hurricane. Every day your country is slipping into a fucking shit show but you have to delude yourself that everything will be fine because the alternative is becoming "tank man".

It is all fascinating to me.

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

#394

Post by platevoltage »

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.

We are just on a slightly different timeline. I guess we are lucky that our current leader is an incredibly unhealthy 80 year old.

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

#395

Post by platevoltage »

ck2 wrote: post #169

if the Dems don't also take back the Senate, this country is done it will take longer than this decade, maybe even next, to restore the brain loss and faith in secure jobs for research basically this country will just become a highway of non-stop warehouses, alternating ICE prisons vs "AI" datacenters science, medicine, all research and development just gone to other countries

Ever notice how there really always just enough Democrats in the senate to tank a progressive bill? The Senate needs to go honestly.

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

#396

Post by ScoobleDoodle »

tarkin2 wrote: post #331

So the US won the cold war and eventually decided to emulate their defeated opponent. It's quite a character arch.

It looks like at the moment Russia is winning in the end: Links between Trump associates and Russian officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...

How the Russian interests have taken over significantly invalidates the purpose and existence of the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

But then again, President Biden's administration had multiple grounds to prosecute Trump for crimes committed, whether the attempted coup or espionage with top secret documents or Epstein, and they just did not make it happen in a way that had any effect.

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

#397

Post by platevoltage »

amazingamazing wrote: post #363
dgellow wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am not confused. Sad . Go analyze the front pages for yourself with llm, it is becoming more political.

Wouldn't it be great if our leadership wasn't so batshit crazy and we could just talk about the latest update to the coolest new framework?

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

#399

Post by expedition32 »

xp84 wrote: post #373
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

In my country white males actually started to believe in their own bullshit so they let a little Jewish girl take the medical exam as a joke.

They immediately regretted it but the results were already printed in the newspapers. The rest as they say is history.

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

#400

Post by unclebucknasty »

kelnos wrote: post #135
unclebucknasty wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've restated your flawed assertions, you continue to reassign the roles, and you're conflating Congress with political appointees. > The problem scientific institutionalists face is that they've squandered a lot of public trust over the decades The left generally trusts science and the scientific community, while the right has fallen prey to the right-wing war on science and truth. This war was explicitly designed…

> You've restated your flawed assertions, you continue to reassign the roles, and you're conflating Congress with political appointees. That's at best a misunderstanding of the GP's argument, at worst a bad-faith response. GP said: > "the important question is: who are the people who have the power to decide how taxpayer money is spent?" The answer obviously is: political actors. Ultimately it's Congress. And sometim…

>That's at best a misunderstanding...bad-faith...

No. Analyze the thread more carefully, particularly the original comment to which I replied. Should help any good faith reader to see that it's the opposite.

>That is 100% correct. Congress controls spending

You'll see that I actually introduced that fact originally to clearly delineate the roles, whereas GP was blurring / reassigning them to make his point. I added that Congress's other major role here is in oversight, which corrects the GP's assertion that political appointees are needed for accountability to the people. i.e. I'm saying that mechanism exists, Consitutionally. That destroys his primary argument—that this is about accountability.

You seemed to have overlooked that fact (in addition to my other points), in much the same style as GP. Perhaps his rhetoric has worked on you a bit here.

>Congress delegated the details of that role in this case to the president, and the president wants political appointees making these decisions, not scientists and subject matter experts.

That is not what's happening here, and reads like a complete misunderstanding or calculated twisting. The "in this case" bit is actively misleading. The OMB already executes spend management. There is no special "case" here. The regime is using the OMB to politicize the process by claiming it was partisan—i.e. using the same well-worn tactic in its ongoing attack on science and other matters.

>I'm not sure that's actually true in general

Of course it's true. Statistically.

>that trust is not absolute

Never the assertion. Immaterial.

>and things have happened (like initial COVID response

In fact, the left experienced a temporary bounce in scientific confidence during the initial COVID response, before settling down to pre-pandemic baselines. Meanwhile, the right experienced a roughly 20 point drop in confidence that has persisted.

Post reply on HN