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

411–420 of 676 posts

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

#411

Post by kennywinker »

parineum wrote: post #298
kennywinker wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with, independent of their checkboxes, was somehow undesirable The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups. These policies exist to counteract the cronyism and “doesn’t look like me”-ism inherent to the way people make choices. We know people don’t hire and collaborate with the best of the best, because when looking for the best they see it…

> The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups If there are no martian biologists because of systemic discrimination, why would the best if the best biologists include a martian. The argument defeats itself. I don't understand why people keep repeating this lie instead of the truth. The only way this makes sense is if you think the only way someone can be inspired by someone else is if they look…

You’re straw-manning your own misconception of the reason for inclusivity, not the reason I gave.

Inspiring specific groups to follow a career path by showing them people on that path is “representation” not inclusivity. Representation matters because it’s easier (not impossible, as you suggest the argument is) to see yourself e.g. as a nurse or a teacher if you have seen male nurses or teachers succeeding.

Representation matters, but not nearly as much as the opposite side of things - who gets opportunities. Which is what I was talking about.

Btw one of the major groups that have benefitted from the dreaded “DEI” in universities has been white men. They are an under-represented group in many post-secondary settings.

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

#412

Post by plagiarist »

sseagull wrote: post #190
b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think China needs the kind of scientists disproportionately affected by the bad orange man's vendetta.

The chaos is affecting pretty much all areas of science, not just the controversial ones. I work in non-controversial, pretty run-of-the-mill chemistry research and the attacks on the NSF have certainly impacted our funding situation. Very long delays in proposal review, complete pivoting to AI, etc. I have co-workers panicking over the green card changes. And the overall morale is pretty grim everywhere. Edit: don’t…

You're writing a response to a racist who supports Donald out of racism, even despite the innumerable policy failures.

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

#413

Post by vharuck »

chadgpt3 wrote: post #264
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…

Have the Democrats ever put any power-grab instruments back in any boxes? I don't remember a time they have, and I don't think they'll start now. They are meek cowards.

They joined Republicans in limiting presidential power after Watergate. Granted, these limitations usually come after gross abuses. But these are gross abuses, and there's no reason to think they won't get grosser.

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

#414

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

closewith wrote: post #204
throw0101c wrote: post #188

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? If the choice is between $0 in the US and >$0 someplace else, you emigrate to >$0 if you want to continue your research.

I wonder where you suggest researchers go that is both granting funding and not attaching similar or more stringent strings to the money?

Any country that doesn't openly say that it will bar funding to grant applications that include any word from a given list of words. Which, of the countries on this planet, is quite a few.

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

#415

Post by tremon »

sandworm101 wrote: post #385
evrydayhustling wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, any research related to weapons programs. Jobs/grants in the fields of laser research, AI, material sciences, mathematics, chemistry and aerospace are safe... so long as you dont talk to outsiders.

so long as you dont talk to outsiders

outsiders like... their immediate family back home?

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

#416

Post by SoftTalker »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #406
SoftTalker wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 admin…

Well the current administration has about 2.5 years to go, and depending on mid-terms they may spend the last two years of that occupied with impeachments and complete legislative gridlock in addition to the normal lame-duck loss of power. So we'll see what comes next.

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

#417

Post by JCTheDenthog »

frigidwalnut wrote: post #405
wisemanwillhear wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.]

I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.

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

#418

Post by jpalawaga »

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…

This is a very “taxation is theft” take.

Everyone knows that many things that are not directly beneficial to society would go unfunded because humans optimize for what’s around them, and things that are self-interested.

There isn’t even alignment. One person wants to fund science, the other wants to fund high speed rail, the other wants farm subsidies, one wants social security and the other wants the military. Government balances all of that together. Of course people will make value judgements about their pet interests and declare the other aspects to be better funded separately.

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

#419

Post by inglor_cz »

boothby wrote: post #410
evrydayhustling wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

$$$$$ > €€€ or ££

With a few exceptions like Switzerland, American levels of compensation for highly qualified people just can't be matched anywhere in the Western world.

Saudi Arabia or UAE maybe, but these don't even try to pretend to be socially and politically liberal.

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

#420

Post by halJordan »

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…

Science needs to be done through the government because of a) hire incredibly expensive science is and b) hire incredibly concentrated wealth is.

The USG is quite often the only group able and willing to fund most projects.

Post reply on HN