WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

Post by hvb2 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 5:16 AM UTC

rand_r wrote: post #280

hvb2 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government, and taxation/subsidies in general, have and always will be a tool to encourage one thing and discourage the other. A lot of research won't be profitable for years to come or is even unlikely to be profitable at all, so you funding sources are limited. The government, having no profit motive, can encourage this kind of research by funding it. Typically the hope is that it'll lead to increased productivity…

> all viewpoints covered from you populace This is the core of the issue. We don’t actually want all viewpoints represented because that wouldn’t by itself produce any value. You want someone to come up with the fundamental theorems of Calculus, linking the area of a curve with its anti-derivative, because that’s incredibly useful. Generically grabbing everyone’s view isn’t a competitive strategy. You need to be sele…

Post by phs318u » Sun, May 31, 2026, 5:55 AM UTC

appreciatorBus wrote: post #552

phs318u wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t read my linked article. And you are still trying to shoehorn an entire spectrum of biological expression which is a function of chromosomes, genes, hormones, fully or partially developed sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics, into two buckets - which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics. The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one de…

> which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics. Nope. Not what I said at all. Nothing I said in any way related to the idea that some combinations were “blessed”. Merely that there are two pathways. Individuals may travel those two pathways in numerous ways, but until someone discovers a third gamete, there are only two pathways. > The thing about reality is that it persists no matter…

Post by nielsbot » Sun, May 31, 2026, 6:16 AM UTC

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.

Post by Auracle » Sun, May 31, 2026, 6:46 AM UTC

guax wrote: post #525

softwaredoug wrote: post #471

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…

> Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants Strong claims require strong evidence. The tenants some people want to challenge are climate change, gender identity, renewable energy, vaccinations, etc. So its a hard bargain, I believe science benefits from being a bit stubborn.

Post by frm88 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 7:27 AM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #43

wrs wrote: post #34

And a generation of young scientists starts packing their bags...

To where?