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

NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 877 posts

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#101

Post by arrosenberg »

damnitbuilds wrote: post #90
arrosenberg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it, I just disagree. Bidens DEI policies aren’t why they are gutting the NSF, that’s just an excuse.

That is not what you wrote: "How do you figure? If they simply changed the grant writing process back to what it was before Biden, that argument would make sense."

If their concern was actually DEI (instead of destroying the federal governments power) they would change the grant process going forward and maybe cut funding selectively. That they aren’t doing that, but cutting funding wholesale, is a clear indication of their real intent. Blaming Biden for their destructive ideology is a bad argument. They're breaking it, they get to own the outcome.

FWIW, I agree with you other than placing the blame. It was a ridiculous policy, it cost the Democrats the election, but they don’t get blamed for the further poor choices Trumps regime is making.

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#102

Post by _djo_ »

timschmidt wrote: post #76
dingnuts wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when in fact scientific research is in the interest of Defense, especially NOAA. I'm sure the Air Force will appreciate degraded forecast capability. doesn't even make sense within the normal Republican playbook

NOAA is a civilian agency. Military has https://www.metoc.navy.mil/

Which benefits greatly from the data and expertise NOAA provides. It's not in a position to do it all itself.

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#103

Post by pyrophane »

LightBug1 wrote: post #6

[flagged]

I'm an American. I struggle almost every day with what feels like a betrayal of our republic by so many voters and leaders, and none of the explanations for why it has happened, even when taken together, are wholly satisfying.

It has shaken my faith in democracy, but at the same time, there's nothing else, so I have no choice but to try to fight for it in what ways I can.

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#104

Post by rjsw »

duxup wrote: post #98
burnte wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're even sending letters to foreign governments "ordering" them to cut all DEI programs. OTHER GOVERNMENTS. Insanity.

I think for Trump hangers on bumbling around and acting like an idiot is thought to be a required social signal. I suspect few have a relationship they trust with Trump, dude is erratic, prone to strange influences (twitter) and the only way hangers on can think to signal they are doing good work is effectively… act out in a way that gets attention.

This is known as "Working Towards the Führer" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#%22Working_Towards...

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#105

Post by searine »

jimmar wrote: post #78

In 2023, the NSF said it gave 9,400 research awards at an average of $239,700 each [1]. That's $2.25 billion. That year, the NSF has a budget of $10.5 billion [2]. Can somebody with more insight into the NSF explain where the NSF money goes? My PhD was largely funded through government grants, though not the NSF. To put it mildly, our government contacts were not the most competent people and were frequently roadbloc…

> To put it mildly, our government contacts were not the most competent people and were frequently roadblocks rather than enablers.

PhD students aren't usually the ones interacting with program officers or grant institutions so I'm not sure you had the most accurate view...

Every grant official I've ever worked with has been a peer scientis who is professional and competent. They've always been focused on getting return on investment and keeping projects on track.

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#106

Post by mapt »

jimmar wrote: post #78

In 2023, the NSF said it gave 9,400 research awards at an average of $239,700 each [1]. That's $2.25 billion. That year, the NSF has a budget of $10.5 billion [2]. Can somebody with more insight into the NSF explain where the NSF money goes? My PhD was largely funded through government grants, though not the NSF. To put it mildly, our government contacts were not the most competent people and were frequently roadbloc…

I'm thinking that 9,400 are probably not the only meaningful research programs being funded.

https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2024/appropriations

The "Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024" (Public Law 118-42) provides $9.06 billion for the U.S. National Science Foundation, a decrease of $479.01 million, or 5.0%, below the FY 2023 base appropriation. It provides:

* $7.18 billion for the Research and Related Activities (RRA) account.

* $1.17 billion for the STEM Education (EDU) account.

* $234.0 million for the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account.

* $448.0 million for the Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM) account.

* $24.41 million for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) account.

* $5.09 million for the Office of the National Science Board (NSB) account.

If we drill down into RRD:

https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/65_fy2025.pdf

* Biological Sciences $844.91

* Computer & Information Science & Engineering 1,035.90

* Engineering 797.57

* Geosciences Programs 1,053.17

* Geosciences: Office of Polar Programs 538.62

* U.S. Antarctic Logistics Activities 94.20

* Mathematical & Physical Sciences 1,659.95

* Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences 309.06

* Technology, Innovation, & Partnerships 664.15

* Office of the Chief of Research Security Strategy & Policy1 9.85

* Office of International Science & Engineering 68.43

* Integrative Activities 531.39

* U.S. Arctic Research Commission 1.75

* Mission Support Services 116.27

Total $7,631.02

We have shrunk the NSF down to a tiny fraction of GDP over time, considering its purview and the role science should be playing in our society, and there was briefly a consensus that we should double or triple its funding - https://www.science.org/content/article/house-panel-offers-i... before political news cycle considerations took hold.

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#107

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

zkmon wrote: post #99
LightBug1 wrote: post #6

[flagged]

America is almost like two separate countries with full animosity and opposite ideologies. But they can never have the luxury of having their own ruler.

I think that we decided over 100 years ago that an amicable divorce was out of the question. So what now?

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#108

Post by dfxm12 »

ourmandave wrote: post #35

Last week, staff were briefed on a new process for vetting grant proposals that are found to be out of step with a presidential directive on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),... In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awa…

All this extra bureaucracy doesn't seem very efficient.

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#109

Post by jasonhong »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #68

Having employees of academic institutions doing the vetting sounds like it could easily evolve into a conflict of interest. "" The initial vetting is handled by hundreds of program officers, all experts in their field and some of whom are on temporary leave from academic positions. ""

Having served on several NSF review panels, NSF (and academia in general) manages conflicts of interest rather seriously. You cannot review proposals if you have collaborated with any of the investigators of a proposal within the past few years (the time is well defined but I don't recall what it is off the top of my head).

Also, NSF program officers can have conflicts as well, for example if you are on leave from a university then you can't be heading a review panel that has any grants related to that university.

At my university, we also have to do periodic online training about conflicts of interest, and have to fill out financial forms disclosing whether we have a financial stake in the work (e.g. if we own a startup and are trying to direct research funds to that startup).

Basically, I've always felt that we held ourselves to a higher standard than Congress held itself too (e.g. being on a Congressional oversight committee and owning stock in affected companies, but that's a different rant).

Re: NSF faces shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions

#110

Post by busterarm »

chuckadams wrote: post #84
ourmandave wrote: post #35

Last week, staff were briefed on a new process for vetting grant proposals that are found to be out of step with a presidential directive on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),... In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awa…

These are the same people that zeroed out research funding on transgenic mice because they thought it was the same as transgendered.

That ended up not being the gotcha that y'all thought it was and CNN had to add a correction on their fact-check because mice were indeed being administered cross-sex hormone therapy, just not for the purpose of changing their sex. One of the experiments in particular was to determine how gender-affirming care would affect humans, which indeed makes it at odds with the administration's DEI policy and is not just them being dumb about what transgenic means.
Post reply on HN