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

#471

Post by softwaredoug » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

To steel man this move

You could argue peer review has become a mechanism to encourage incrementalism. That it doesn’t reward big leaps. And the public isn’t getting ROI on science funding compared to 50 years ago.

Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants - some might say theology - of the field. It’s basically a cartel for keeping a field of study alive, regardless of its value. True innovation happens when people collaborate outside their fields.

Steelman aside, there probably are better ways to solve this problem systematically than just let a politically appointee have final say. If we were serious about this problem, smart people thinking about scientific policy probably have some great ideas that are not being listened to.

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

#472

Post by BrenBarn » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #140

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like your argument is proving way too much. If next President announces that he feels rural hospitals are an inefficient use of resources, and so all residency programs outside of major metro areas are cancelled, would you accept that as a legitimate use of funding discretion? To me it would sound like an obvious campaign of retribution against groups he finds it politically convenient to punish. (A campaign…

I mean, if that's what the law allows, then sure, that would be a valid thing for the next president to do. It would be bad for the country to do so, but plenty of things that are bad for the country are legal for the government to do. We'd have no choice but to accept that as a legitimate use of funding discretion, assuming that actually is the case (I don't know the law related to this, so I can't say). We can be u…

Insofar as this is true, it only illustrates how illegitimate the system is.

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

#473

Post by SubiculumCode » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:30 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #416

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

I'll be happy if we are not in a civil war after the midterms, because I suspect all these funds Trump has been setting up for J6ers and ICE is to disrupt voting in districts going blue.

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

#474

Post by SubiculumCode » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:31 PM UTC

throwaway85825 wrote: post #464

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…

>If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. That's how its always been, it's just that most people are not attuned to academic politics.

Bullshit. Academic politics exist but not to the degree your comment suggests. These are not equivalent situations.

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

#475

Post by SubiculumCode » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

appreciatorBus wrote: post #453

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…

[flagged]

Complete ignorance on your part, both about the degree of sexual dimorphism, and your apparent, assumed position that gender diverse identities do not have biological origins. There is insufficient data to make firm conclusions, but I will note that brain differences are observed.

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

#476

Post by steve_adams_86 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:41 PM UTC

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,…

I’m not convinced my demographic is discriminated against so much as the playing field is levelled to some degree, because discrimination already occurred in our favour.

The nice thing about regulated discrimination is that it can be an editable, transparent, public document that can be voted on and driven by data. This is better, even if imperfect, than the kind we have when we’re not honest about it.

I’m not saying it’s perfect or wholly good. Just, arguably better. I see a lot of problems with it. It’s a bandaid on deep social and systemic problems.

If anything I appreciate that it’s in the open.

Regardless, I’ve done well in my career at times someone else could have done better. I saw it when I managed hiring processes. Discrimination was everywhere. But I was there, I was white, I was male. That was good enough. I certainly wasn’t the best for the job. There’s something wrong with that in my opinion. I should have had to try harder at times. It would have been better for everyone. How do we fix that?

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

#477

Post by swed420 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:47 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #461

swed420 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you mean by "manufactured consent for each other the whole time"? > 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. Using the polarizing topic of COVID (whose risks remain in 2026) as an example, we can answer both of your questions: https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co...…

Covid is a great example, because outside of hyperpartisan spaces, it was not a polarizing topic at the time these pieces were written. As the second link details, by 2022, the American people strongly felt that there were more important problems to tackle and we would have to eventually accept Covid as a fact of life. Ms. Doubleday perceives her problem to be with "the press" because she's out of touch, and doesn't…

You clearly didn't read the article or miscomprehended its implications, which cites external sources.

/r/ZeroCovidCommunity continues to be growing community for good reason.

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

#478

Post by parineum » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:50 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #411

parineum wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Represent…

> Representation matters, but not nearly as much as the opposite side of things - who gets opportunities.

You're acting like these things aren't intertwined.

You can't adjust the lever of representation without affecting who gets opportunities.

You can believe what you want about the merits of adjusting those levers but to pretend like you can limit your pool of people to a smaller group of people and not affect the apex of the talent pool is disengenous. Be honest and say you think it's worth it.

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

#479

Post by jltsiren » Sat, May 30, 2026, 7:52 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #419

boothby wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Academic salaries are lower in the US relative to industry salaries than in most other countries. While the nominal sums are high, the salaries are low relative to housing costs. Particularly because good universities tend to be in expensive areas. When you compare two academics in similar positions in the US and Europe, the European is more likely a homeowner.

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

#480

Post by rayiner » Sat, May 30, 2026, 8:10 PM UTC

TimorousBestie wrote: post #369

JKCalhoun wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Final piece of evidence? Of course not. But it's part of a stream of news for some time now that points in the same direction. (And I have no idea why Rayiner was downvoted. I'm happy for them though—for sticking to principles and posting what may well be downvoted to oblivion. It's something I have become more comfortable with myself.)

Insinuating that the administrative state is racist by genetic fallacy while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow is hypocritical enough for me to disregard his opinion.

The administrative state wasn’t merely created by the same progressives that gave us eugenics. It has its roots in the same dim view of the common man and how much agency they should be given. Woodrow Wilson and other progressives were deeply skeptical of democracy. He wrote about the how the “unphilosophical bulk of mankind” didn’t know what was good for them. And his solution to that was to have the government run by experts insulated from democratic politics: https://faculty.fiu.edu/~revellk/pad3003/Wilson.pdf.

That’s still the same mentality that underlies the modern administrative state.

> while longing for a return to the era of Jim Crow

Last I checked you guys are the ones who went to the supreme court to defend racial discrimination in college admissions and racially segregated voting districts. Within just a few terms!