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

401–410 of 676 posts

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

#401

Post by pstuart »

rayiner wrote: post #31
paulryanrogers wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress can’t turn over the expenditure of taxpayer funds to people who aren’t politically accountable. If Congress doesn't stop the executive and the Supreme Court overrules any legal blockades then ... I guess they can and are doing so RN.

> Congress doesn't stop the executive Congress won't stop the executive because the party that won the executive also won Congress by almost 4 million votes. That's not a sign of the system not working, it's a sign of the system working as intended.

> Congress won't stop the executive because the party that won the executive also won Congress by almost 4 million votes

I remember when Nixon stepped down because his own party could not support his transgressions. The Republican party did this. That is a sign of the system working as intended.

You claim to be radicalized by a pair of lawsuits against Trump, like out of every legal issue he was entangled with it was those two that convinced you that the Democrats were evil?

Guess what? The Democrats suck and their party leadership is just as complicit in the protection of the oligarchy as the GOP's. But what happened with those Trump lawsuits wasn't a weaponization, it was blowback on a man who has been sued over 4000 times and has been shown to embrace criminal behavior when it suited him. Same thing with his two impeachments.

What I believe really radicalized you is the Federalist Society. And just in my other comment about how kids want to belong, so do adults (it's a human thing). And your desire to belong and be part of the elite power base you have put your lot in with the Monarchists.

Bear in mind that the founding-era practice originalism anchors to was voting rights for white male property owners. It took three constitutional amendments to override that. The Federalist Society's originalist framework treats those amendments as the ceiling — not a foundation for further expansion of rights. That's a methodology with predictable winners and losers, and I'd note you're unlikely to be among the winners.

This is one of many reasons why originalism is a weaponized mechanism rather than some noble hewing to principles.

The Constitution is what makes this country great -- being a nation of laws of mankind vs living under the whims of a monarchy of a god-gifted king.

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

#402

Post by rramadass »

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…

The Current Crisis: What's Happening to Science in America - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687

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

#403

Post by nielsbot »

footy wrote: post #172
pindab0ter wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is this "this" you're referring to? Was this on the ballot? Did Trump announce that he would do this? It seems very easy to just blame this on the voter like this.

I'm Canadian and I can tell you this was always part of Project 2025, which was extremely obviously the plan all along. So I don't know. Assuming the American voter can read and and access to the internet, it's kind of pathetic to imply they couldn't have known

people in america have low political involvement after years of politicians ignoring their material needs. non-voters are the biggest group of voters. i think it’s by design.

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

#404

Post by nielsbot »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #160
nielsbot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans in power and the capitalist political class, sure. But the average American on the street? They don't want this.

The average american on the street does not know how grant applications were approved before this change and they will continue to not know how grant applications are approved after this change.

it’s making the news a tiny bit more than before but we’re saying the same thing I think.

i also think the importance of grants is a bit academic, so not a day to day concern.

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

#405

Post by frigidwalnut »

wisemanwillhear wrote: post #391
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 con…

Private citizens fund scientific research through their taxes. This has been the most practical way to fund science for decades.

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

#406

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

SoftTalker wrote: post #360
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…

My father was a Ph.D., a research scientist at a large state university. After understanding how political everything is under the surface, he cautioned me from ever working in a field that depended on government funding. "What one administration gives you, the next one can take away" is close to a literal quote. Outsiders like to imagine that the pure pursuit of science without any agendas is what university researc…

> "What one administration gives you, the next one can take away" is close to a literal quote.

We created laws to prevent this from being the case. They work(ed) most of the time.

The current administration believed that it didn't have to follow those laws. After being slapped down multiple times by courts for this, they want to change the law(s) so that what your father said becomes true. But worse - "what the administration gave you last week, they can take away next week".

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

#407

Post by nielsbot »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #149
nielsbot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans in power and the capitalist political class, sure. But the average American on the street? They don't want this.

They voted for this. In larger numbers than in 2020 and 2016.

non voters were the largest bloc and its understandable since lawmakers are largely unresponsive to their material needs. (bigger military budget every year, no universal healthcare plan, etc)

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

#408

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

wisemanwillhear wrote: post #391
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 con…

It was realized some time ago that having citizens decide to "donate to the research we care about" was not the most efficient way to get the most important research done. So we switched to a system where we pool our resources (taxes), and then use a somewhat complex process (described in TFA) to decide how to allocate them to possible research.

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

#409

Post by ourmandave »

Translation: The administration needs the power to pivot based on whatever narrative we're pushing at the moment.

Example: "They're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats."

Cancel Haitian grants. And also round them up in deportation holding facilities.

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

#410

Post by boothby »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #348
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 tal…

As a Canadian on a hiring committee, it's fascinating to talk to Americans who hate the political environment but still don't want to relocate.
Post reply on HN