Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. science is in chaos

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#121

Post by dmd »

embedding-shape wrote: post #4

> When the shutdown ended in mid-November, Reynolds’s team had just two weeks to get on budget. It failed. The plan the group submitted would cost too much and take too long. “Our last hope was that NASA headquarters would understand what had gone on and give us some leeway,” Reynolds says. NASA did not. After nearly 10 years of work, AXIS was dead. If the scientists haven't left science behind after an experience li…

One of the researchers in my department had a study canceled because something they did "engendered a robust hemodynamic response".

Whoops, keyword match.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#122

Post by estearum »

timr wrote: post #74
ModernMech wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So where are researchers who want to study topics you don't personally like supposed to get funding, in your view?

> So where are researchers who want to study topics you don't personally like supposed to get funding, in your view? I'm sorry, was I not clear enough? Bad research should not get funding. Or at least, it shouldn't get it for decades and decades , while producing no results [1]. One's desire to do research into irrelevant questions does not entitle you to support in the name of "science". [1] I'm OK with some crap sc…

Just because the medical system hasn't adapted to the (frankly astounding) findings produced by SDOH research doesn't mean it's not valuable or should be stopped. The takeaway from SDOH is that social determinants are by far more powerful forces on people's health than actual medicine.

You would prefer we spend all of our money on the 10-15% of health outcomes determined by actual medical care and simply ignore the remainder, and you argue this from a point of "logic?"

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#123

Post by timr »

ModernMech wrote: post #113
timr wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So where are researchers who want to study topics you don't personally like supposed to get funding, in your view? I'm sorry, was I not clear enough? Bad research should not get funding. Or at least, it shouldn't get it for decades and decades , while producing no results [1]. One's desire to do research into irrelevant questions does not entitle you to support in the name of "science". [1] I'm OK with some crap sc…

I understand you personally are of the opinion that it's bad research, but thank God you're not in charge of funding research, because I pay taxes too and I think it's good. But that begs the question -- how do you determine what is relevent and irrelevant research, beyond just consulting your personal feelings? Because if you have a sure and nonbiased way to do that which will satisfy all the current stake holders (…

> but thank God you're not in charge of funding research, because I pay taxes too and I think it's good.

Oh stop with the silly straw men, already. I think research is good. I did research for decades of my life.

I am against bad research.

> how do you determine what is relevent and irrelevant research, beyond just consulting your personal feelings? Because if you have a sure and nonbiased way to do that which will satisfy all the current stake holders (the entire tax base and US population), I think everyone would agree we should that!

Well, I proposed one way (which you completely ignored, in order to accuse me of being biased): just fund stuff at random.

I don't think you're being a sincere interlocutor, but you've stumbled upon a legitimate class of argument: how does anyone separate their personal bias from objective evaluation of science? The current system sucks at this, and is not only loaded with bias, the bias is built into the system.

We probably not do worse to just set some minimum objective bar for competency (degrees, institution, basic review for research viability, etc.) then fund whomever passes the bar at random.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#124

Post by SanjayMehta »

nixon_why69 wrote: post #109
timr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You seem strongly in favor science that you understand, and opposed to research that you don't take an interest in or have read. Just say it the clear way, so that everyone can see what you're doing: if I don't like it, it must be because I don't understand it.

I'm not well-versed in social science either so I don't have a slam dunk here, but I'd be very willing to bet it's more involved than you're portraying. To flip it on your space telescope, another one? They've been doing this for years, they're just going to tell us there's a lot of galaxies out there, boring.

[flagged]

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#125

Post by 999900000999 »

IsTom wrote: post #41
gignico wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all should feel sad and angry. That said, this was never about saving money. This is about keeping scientists under tight control by the government, in order to suppress research on climate change and other controversial topics. If the government can cut your grant at any time without notice or appeal you will think twice before publishing results that go against their ideology, or even before publishing a critici…

I just want to vent: climate change is not a controversial topic, it's an inconvenient topic for people making a lot of money.

In theory it can also be beneficial to historical cold countries like Russia and Canada.

It’s entirely possible Russia will find itself with a pacific warm water port.

Perhaps tons of tundra frost will become fertile farm land.

Of course this is at the costs of billions of climate refugees having to migrate as well as a bunch of other side effects

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#126

Post by adornKey »

IsTom wrote: post #41
gignico wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all should feel sad and angry. That said, this was never about saving money. This is about keeping scientists under tight control by the government, in order to suppress research on climate change and other controversial topics. If the government can cut your grant at any time without notice or appeal you will think twice before publishing results that go against their ideology, or even before publishing a critici…

I just want to vent: climate change is not a controversial topic, it's an inconvenient topic for people making a lot of money.

[flagged]

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#127

Post by svachalek »

api wrote: post #16

After the election my very first thought was that this is the start of the Chinese century, since America has voted to step down. Seems to be playing out.

The US situation is mitigated by both Russia and China deciding to make massive, foolish maneuvers at the same time as ours. However neither can match how stupendously we are lighting our future on fire in every possible dimension.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#129

Post by mech998877 »

jfengel wrote: post #76
timr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the scientists haven't left science behind after an experience like this, probably nothing will....I think I should feel angry, but I just feel sad for all the humans involved here, I hope they manage to come out with a more positive perspective than I'm able to here. As someone who spent far too much of my life pursuing that goal, I have an unpopular opinion: US science needs some cuts. The first project (the s…

You seem strongly in favor science that you understand, and opposed to research that you don't take an interest in or have read. I don't think you'd accept news media accounts of space science. But you're accepting their synopses of social science without looking deeper. Perhaps I am wrong and you're actually an expert on sociology or some related field. But you are not accurately describing how the field works and w…

The replication crisis in science is particularly bad within the social sciences, and also particularly bad within sociology. When experts within a field are unable to converge on a result, it's pretty decent evidence that the field has a major problem. And for sociology, the problem isn't that the math is too hard, it's that the practice of sociology is pretty much a political exercise masquerading as science.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#130

Post by estearum »

MemoryHoleHQ wrote: post #111
ModernMech wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grants should go the best proposals, not to those with the proper genitalia, melanin content of the skin, and correct religion of those applying. I'm confused. At least at the NSF, about 60-70% of their awards go to white men. Are those the appalling discriminatory practices, or what do you mean?

[flagged]

You know you can't just put one topic into the grievance bucket (science funding), shake it around, then pull out a different topic (orchestral hiring practices) and expect to have a conversation, right?
Post reply on HN