Live data from Hacker News

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

141–150 of 676 posts

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

#141

> The OMB is headed by Russell Vought, lead architect of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration. This is far scarier than any single rule about research grants, and I'm not sure why nobody's talking about this. The OMB writes the budget to enact federal policy. And critically, no federal regulation can exist with the OMB approving it. By making this appointment explicitly political, they…

> This is far scarier than any single rule about research grants, and I'm not sure why nobody's talking about this.

Not sure what you mean. Lots of people have been talking about it since he was appointed to the role. I've known about it and been pissed about it for quite a long time now.

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

#142
post #44
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are very much in uncharted waters and the rules have been thrown out the window. At the risk of repeating myself, wherever we are it is effectively collectively by choice. It's all about hearts and minds, but really hearts. I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized (I'm a slow learner), but hopefully that can be outnumbered.

Pick one, it’s by choice or by hope, not both.

That makes no sense and is not what I was talking about.

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

#143

> “We warned of this exact form of government overreach in science a year ago,” says Colette Delawalla, founder of the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science. “It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem.” If you want to be independent of the government, don't take money from the government. If you are mad because you don't agree with…

Yeah, it's a little disingenuous to make an argument like that. This isn't overreach; it seems like it's completely allowed by the law written when Congress delegated spending decisions around these kinds of grants to the executive branch.

We may not like it (I certainly don't), but this is one of the times when Trump seems to actually be acting within his authority, and not pushing at or past those limits.

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

#144
post #8
post #4

I'm curious to see how this is defended by the party members here. Science should be guided by science, not ideology.

The country runs on the principles of the constitution, not the institutional principles of science. Control over spending of taxpayer funds always must remain within the political system. Voters can always choose to turn over those decisions to scientists they trust. For much of the 20th century, that’s what voters did. But if they don’t trust the priorities of the current scientific establishment, they can also cho…

> The country is supposed to run on the principles of the constitution

FTFY

But then your counter is likely some form of originalism as you've been instructed. The current administration and it's pet SCOTUS have no interest in the Constitution or they wouldn't be so hell bent on making POTUS king for life. A mad king at that.

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

#145
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of political appointees struggled with Why should we pay for shrimp running on treadmills? (The case for curiosity-driven research) ~ https://www.statnews.com/2025/04/03/basic-science-curiosity-... Some just couldn't grasp the why, others understood perfectly well why their major donors wanted to squash studies on environmental stressors that might impact fisheries.

Being curious definitely leads to discoveries. But important discoveries can also be made by saying "Topic X, if better understood, might lead to a cure for cancer - let's look into (and fund) that". We could think of this problem as a slider from 0-100 where we allocate from 'none' up to 'all' our research budget to curiosity-driven research. Political appointees having a say will likely move the slider toward the 0…

So we haven't found a cure for cancer because those silly scientists are too busy farting around with unimportant stuff? That's your take away here?

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

#146
post #105

This means research projects will be optimised for political boasting. Sounds terrible, but is it? It incentivises high-impact research (otherwise politicians can't boast about it), and less research into trivialities that common sense says aren't worth the public funding.

> Sounds terrible, but is it?

Yes

> It incentivises high-impact research

It incentivizes work that sounds impressive to laymen. Actual work tends to be technical and might not sound super exciting.

If 20 years ago, a politician had to get up and explain that we were spending millions of dollars training computers to recognize a strawberry, likely the entire field of machine learning would not exist today.

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

#147
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being curious definitely leads to discoveries. But important discoveries can also be made by saying "Topic X, if better understood, might lead to a cure for cancer - let's look into (and fund) that". We could think of this problem as a slider from 0-100 where we allocate from 'none' up to 'all' our research budget to curiosity-driven research. Political appointees having a say will likely move the slider toward the 0…

Shrimp running treadmills, specifically, wasn't idle curiosity driven blue sky research though - it was tied to creating real metrics for measuring impact of change in marine environments on the health of the food we eat. It's a good example of "political types" making a song and dance based on "common sense" to save trivial amounts of money while making the health of marine systems opaque for the benefit of politica…

I see your point, that donors could influence political appointees to nix certain research topics for their own benefit.

How often does that actually happen, and wouldn't other institutions pick up the slack in most cases? (i.e. high value research doesn't cease to be high value just because one type of grant or institution refuses to fund it; it would therefore be attractive to other institutions/researchers)

Some benefits of having political appointees in the loop are that the pubic perceives (not necessarily 'gets') greater value from public research funding, and the people responsible for the funding (political appointees) are closer to the actual spending and are more involved in the allocative process, which should mean fewer expensive, hard-to-justify topics.

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

#148
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all need to be honest with ourselves about the fact that they are very clearly not intending to ever allow the shoe to be on the other foot. The upcoming midterms are very plausibly the last free and fair elections we will ever have in this country. As deeply unpopular as this administration is right now, the Democrats will need an enormous amount of luck for the size of historic landslide it will require…

I think you're wrong. I don't know that for a fact, of course, but I'm not that pessimistic. I don't think Democrats will win the Senate this fall (though there's a chance they will, and I'd be happy to be wrong here). The House is reasonably likely. Either way, they won't have the supermajority needed to convict on impeachment. Trump is doing a lot to try to destabilize elections and put his thumbs on the scale. His…

I genuinely hope you’re right.

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

#149

Americans and Republicans seem so fine with this. Amazing to see this happen live.

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.

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

#150
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

And the USSR experienced tremendous economic and technological progress under Stalin, propelling it to an industrial and military superpower second only to the US. Similarly, Germany experienced great economic growth under the Third Reich. To each his own, I guess, but personally I'll take a less corrupt and more equitable country over a wealthy and powerful one any day.

While there are also other reasons for the great progress of USSR under Stalin, it is likely that the most important cause was provided by the benefits that USSR got from being among the victors of WWII.

After the war, USSR incorporated totally or partially many countries and they transformed the remaining Eastern European countries into vassal states.

Especially during the first decade after WWII, USSR has stolen huge amounts of resources from those territories, in various forms, starting with what the Red Army had robbed during their so-called "Liberation" actions, then with huge so-called "War reparations" extracted from the countries that the Soviet Union itself had attacked, so they had been forced to attempt to defend themselves, but eventually they had to pay a lot for daring to do this, and then with various profits extracted from mixed companies established in the vassal states after the war and from various unbalanced contracts for economic exchanges with USSR.

The most affected was East Germany, from where entire factories have been moved to Russia, machine by machine and tool by tool, where they constituted the bases for new industries that were developed in USSR after the war. (While USA had no need to take entire factories to be able to reproduce the German technologies, they also took from West Germany many samples of industrial products, together with their manufacturing documentation, which were given to certain American companies, which then expanded after WWII in domains where previously Germany had exclusivity or domination. An example is the technology of magnetic recording, which became important after the war not only for audio and video recording, but also for the first electronic computers.)

While in some countries dictatorships have achieved economical progress mainly by internal means, under Stalin the greatest achievements were based on plundering most of their former neighbors, while the Soviet Union greatly expanded territorially, mostly at its west, but also at its east.

Post reply on HN