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

#421

Post by fasterik » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

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 capital is good at funding research that is likely to provide a short-term return on investment. It's not so good at funding basic research, where most of the paradigm-shifting breakthroughs come from. These provide a huge return on investment, but it nets out to society at large on time scales of decades or centuries.

Contrary to what you said, there is actually quite a bit of private philanthropic funding for research, it's just that it's not evenly distributed. The vast majority of it seems to go to medical research, in particular cancer and Alzheimer's. That's obviously a good thing, but my point here is that we can't necessarily depend on private philanthropy to distribute funds optimally.

https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-resear...

I'm generally a fan of Cato and a libertarian approach to economics, but I'm still not convinced that we should be spending zero public money on basic research. I would like to see a decent amount going into mathematics and theoretical physics for example, and I doubt those fields would stay afloat on donations.

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

#422

Post by eclipticplane » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #383

tootie wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's worse than that. Your grant application must be actively aligned with their political agenda. If you are polite, deferential and apolitical but you want to study climate change you will be rejected.

Ahh, so I should study vaccines and autism and tylenol

And gas stoves, why wind turbines are bad for golf courses, the effects of nuclear weapons on hurricanes, the favorability decline of Robert E Lee, invisibility for stealth fighters, the rapid death of the US farmer due to solar panels, and the impact of tariffs on consumer prices...

Wait, maybe not that last one.

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

#423

Post by convolvatron » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #417

frigidwalnut wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

ignoring a gratuitous reference to use of force, absolutely. having a discussion as society about what we are funding is in fact democracy. sadly there is an issue in the sciences in that lay people may have difficulty seeing the benefit of connecting the dots. but we should try. and as flawed as it is, the adversarial system we have in the US is at least a forum for those discussion.

using grep to defund grants that contain words we don't like is the exact opposite of measured and considerate. so is punishing scientists for the sin of working for a 'woke' institution. in fact all this seems extremely punitive, and not in the spirit of optimizing outcomes for costs at all.

note that this policy explicitly removes the requirement to provide any kind of rationale. that sort of directly contradicts the notion that this is a measured discussion about priorities.

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

#424

Post by nutjob2 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:14 PM UTC

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…

Put more simply, it all becomes a slush fund for the regime in power.

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

#425

Post by frigidwalnut » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #417

frigidwalnut wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.

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

#426

Post by somenameforme » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:17 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…

The reason most people dislike these policies is because filtering people for having one set of wanted checkboxes is functionally identical to punishing people for having a different set of implicitly unwanted checkboxes. You are trying to combat discrimination by engaging in discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, even if well intended.

And it's not even clear what issue they're supposed to be solving. Visit any STEM class, research lab - corporate or public, or so on even well before any of these sort of things began to be official guidelines and it was anything but homogeneous, even by the largely irrelevant characteristics that these guidelines target.

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

#427

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

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…

Ah, yes, grants should definitely be tied to how much you want to brownnose for the current political team.

What could go wrong?

Definitely not more corruption.

Definitely not more uncertainty that kills gross fixed capital formation.

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

#428

Post by throwaway902984 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

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.

Canada has a fairly tough points system around their immigration doesn't it? Lone, high income developers are what it seems the system is made to attract, but a whole family?

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

#429

Post by joquarky » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:25 PM UTC

stogot wrote: post #306

tgv wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fill what gap? That of state-controlled research? Early indoctrination? Mass supervision? Revisionism?

You were downvoted but yes, hoping a state-controlled, authoritarian, single party politically led, genocidal government will ”step up” to better less-political research is faith without reason and ignorant of history

Which country are you alluding to?

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

#430

Post by convolvatron » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC

how this this reconcile with the general conservative glee over the defeat of the Chevron defence? wasn't the rationale there that bureaucrats shouldn't be deciding on policy without consulting congress? Roberts even made a little speech about how whipsawing policy back and forth every 4 years wasn't helping anyone.