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

511–520 of 676 posts

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

#511

Post by slowking2 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #484
Redoubts wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the salary difference is a few hundred k, so this all just reads like cope.

> I mean the salary difference is a few hundred k Yes, for FAANG during Covid and now AI. But your average SWE? That's more like 130k in the US [1] vs 61k in Germany [2]. In Germany, that's about 3500€ net (after taxes, retirement and health insurance - that is deducted from gross wages here) per month, of which you spend about 1500-1800 on cost of living (in Munich, the most expensive city in Germany by far), so abo…

Why would you use a PPO? The average SWE can be on an HMO. HMO's are fine. I have never once regretted choosing an HMO.

Additionally, you're using the average software engineer salary in the US but then picking California for rent. The article you linked says country wide you'd expect $1950 for renting a 1-bedroom not the $2500 number you are picking for a studio in the bay area.

So you're off by something like $1000 per month (edit: I admit I am simply looking at what I pay for HMO, it's possible that is somehow unrepresentative but I doubt it) by picking the most expensive health plan and mixing up national salaries vs very expensive areas.

The gun violence risk is vastly overblown. The page you are linking to cites a study where gun deaths are being accumulated for ages 1 to 24 years old. Gun deaths are highly non-random and concentrated in older ages and in very specific areas (largely related to gang activity). The average software engineer with family is not going to run into any of that unless they are in the habit of leaving loaded weapons around the house.

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

#512

Post by conception »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #509
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…

> What researcher in their right mind would move their research and their future to the USA to join this clown rodeo? what about private companies making profits luring researchers?

Private companies don’t do basic research.

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

#513

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

nielsbot wrote: post #404
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Grants are important because they fuel the process by which we create highly trained scientists. It's not a day to day concern (except for the people who depend on them), in the short term, but would have longer term effects.

I understand that there are people in the US who do not think that this is important and actually would prefer fewer scientists that are more poorly trained. There is nothing more infuriating then believing the world is flat and having some egghead prove it isn't.

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

#515

Post by [deleted] »

jjav wrote: post #507
yieldcrv wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done that math too and the other reality is that most of those costs are optional in the US. It is 100% possible for me to have a high salary in the US and save most of it while temporarily exposing myself to larger risks. And it is far more useful for me to be able to say and show that I have a high salary, for access to credit and resources, private investments that give me the best shot of escaping a permanen…

> I've done that math too and the other reality is that most of those costs are optional in the US. If you're very young, single and childless, sort of. You can pick the lowest tier of health coverage from your employer which is often fully covered by the employer and have no other major costs. If you're young and single and healthy this can work out. Of course, if you have some kind of accident or medical emergency,…

[deleted]

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

#516

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

mschuster91 wrote: post #498
lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does achieving "solid middle class" in Munich on 60k somehow involve inheriting an apartment from your late grandma?

It does not. Source: did that until last year when we had to move for the new job of my wife. Rented a 60 m² apartment.

So you conveniently omitted that your wife was also contributing? Is being "solid middle class" in Germany assumes to ever be able to buy your own apartment (preferably not a a 60m^2 shoe-box)?

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

#517

Post by dalyons »

whatthesmack wrote: post #444

It's refreshing to see there actually be positive movement on accountability from the bureaucracy of the US federal government. I work very hard for almost four months every year to earn the money to pay taxes (whether I want to do that or not) that seem to disappear into the ether. I'd love to have some visibility into what is working, not working, and what is being redirected to some arbitrary bureaucrat's particul…

What about this administration so far makes you think they are remotely interested in actual accountability?

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

#518

Post by bonsai_spool »

coldtea wrote: post #505
bonsai_spool wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so wrong-headed of a statement that I’m actually shocked. Do you even know how grants work? You’re speaking about scoring designed to ensure that all Americans (any sex, poverty level, ability, creed) benefit from the use of tax payer money. This was a metric that was well understood AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED. There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants. Edit: less incendiary. I am just very up…

> There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants. And I didn't say it was (though, such scoring has been also a powerful weapon against certain grants being granted, the scoring criteria not always interpreted and used in a politically neutral way - that was just the marketing pitch). I spoke about how grants were already being connected to ideological pressure, both government and organisational, privat…

>> There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants.

> And I didn't say it was (though, such scoring has been also a powerful weapon against certain grants being granted, the scoring criteria not always interpreted and used in a politically neutral way - that was just the marketing pitch).

Your own words, not mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48340780

> That pressure was on even after they were handed

There is a scoring matrix that simply requires grantees not to ignore huge portions of the nation in their research. You didn't even need to score highly here if you scored highly elsewhere. Just not pretend that people with disabilities or other non-majority groups are deserving of attention in taxpayer-funded research.

> Research funding has never been insulated from politics. The difference is now a part of the overall approval becomes openly and transparently political.

It was always open and towards the goal of supporting America.

If you cannot understand what is different, I think there is little hope in writing to you.

I respond for the benefit of those who may not already understand how this process works and who aren't carrying water for a political party.

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

#519

Post by jltsiren »

asdff wrote: post #506
jltsiren wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but you can pull some coin in R01 grants here in a way that you simply cannot in other countries. Shared facilities is another factor. Schools will throw down for a new cryo EM. Might be fully funded by a couple donors along with an entire building around it for the cost of putting up a brass sign with their name by the door. Other nations might be still using soviet equipment.

NIH grants are pretty good, but they have not kept up with inflation. ERC grants are better, unless you are in a country with particularly high salaries. NSF grants are not that special.

Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP. (The US spends more on R&D in general.) European academics are also less dependent on government funding. While European old money has long found it prestigious to fund arts and sciences, US donors are more likely to fund education or buildings.

European academics have continued to immigrate to the US, mostly because there is less competition for resources. It's easier to get a faculty position or a grant in the US, because you are competing against fewer people. Because academic jobs are worse in the US relative to the alternatives, fewer Americans are willing to pursue an academic career. That leaves opportunities for immigrants who have already chosen the academia and are willing relocate.

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

#520

Post by bonsai_spool »

somenameforme wrote: post #426
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…

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. Vis…

> The reason most people dislike these policies is because filtering people for having one set of wanted checkboxes is functionally identical

Not functionally identical. No grants were getting slow-rolled or cancelled.

Why are you having a hard time understanding this?

> 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.

Hmm. Do you think it was an accident that these settings are not homogeneous today? Do you think these settings were different in the past? Did you spend any time trying to test your hypothesis before writing and posting it?

Post reply on HN