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

US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

sciencebusiness.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#151

Post by ninkendo »

sallveburrpi wrote: post #137
adventured wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest timeline for Europe in its history? Post WW2 to now. The greatest timeline for Latin America overall? Post WW2 to now. The greatest timeline for Oceania overall? Post WW2 to now. The greatest timeline for India? Post WW2 to now. The greatest timeline for the rest of Asia overall? Post WW2 to now. Coming up on 80 years. Here's a short list, please tell me which prior ~80 year period in history these natio…

And? I don’t see the direct correlation. The same might be true if we get a China-dominated century - or not who tf knows…

> or not who tf knows

Right, because counterfactuals aren’t provable. It doesn’t seem to stop people from confidently stating that American hegemony was worse than the alternatives.

We know it worked well, that the entire world seems to be better off now than before ww2. We know that west Germany did far better than east Germany. We know Japan did far better than the Asian states under the USSR’s influence. We know that things went pretty damned well overall for the whole NATOsphere after ww2.

We know WW3 didn’t happen.

We don’t know how it would have gone if it were another country “in charge” or how it would have gone if nobody was “in charge” to the degree the US was.

So just saying “Pax Americana was a pox on the world” is such an utterly asinine statement I don’t even know how to begin to address it, other than to file it under “trolls gonna troll.”

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#152

Post by drivingmenuts »

gcanyon wrote: post #77
thisisit wrote: post #63

It is pretty much clear that the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it. There is no reason apart from that. People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that. While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, t…

> the current WH has decided science has a bias against them As the saying goes, reality has a well-established (left|liberal) bias...

> As the saying goes, reality has a well-established (left|liberal) bias

Maybe, but a left-wing bias at least allows right-wingers to speak, which is more than the right-wing wants for everyone else.

Note: left-wing bias doesn't guarantee an audience.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#153

Post by exceptione »

zeroCalories wrote: post #149
exceptione wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot to say about these things, but this forum is a hard place to lay them down. I have to keep it short. The problem is that the "US" is not seated at the table, just a bunch of kleptocrats and some zealots. The mutual benefits are real for the US, as in the populace, but the problem is that if the string-pulling group has to choose between their own interest or the US interest, they pick the first option.…

The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship. If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.

  > 1. The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it.
  > 2. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship.
I have to leave in a minute, but maybe you can explain what you mean? 1 and 2 are in conflict, no?

  > If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.
Do you mean that when the US' public can't hear from the US partners that this is a mutual beneficial relation, the public will assume that these partners thereby admit that this relation was indeed not beneficial for the US public? (Even that the EU is a threat to be dismantled, as foreign policy now calls it)?

Assuming you did mean it somewhat like that, I would say:

a. the American information space is warped and segmented. Corporate ownership, the abolishment of fairness doctrine, information deserts, algorithmic control, conconditioning by corporate narratives (as old as the US oligarchy)--it is all highly dysfunctional. No small feat to get anything sensible past these filters.

b. In line with a, even the Democrats are locked out of this information space. Some titles read by the liberals might be marketed as such, but they are controlling the narratives as much as possible, with language, below-fold, above-fold, false balance via "op-eds" and editors stepping in to relegate possibly impactful stories to books, so no one reads them. Sure, they won't go fox because you can't do that with this readership. For reference, look back at the New York Times: Trump and Project 2025 had given enough signals of what was about to come, but the newspaper frantically tried to balance it with endless stories of Biden's age.

c. As aside, it is real bad, but subtly bad. If one can only read English, I would recommend The Guardian to get real journalism.

d. To wrap it up, Americans are not reachable anymore. When dem voters and rep voters cannot talk with each other, their information space is warped. Do not expect the EU to even get anything in this mess through the gatekeepers. Even the Americans-in-the-know can't.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#154

Post by xphos »

lbrito wrote: post #138

Sad state of affairs that this gets flagged. Any critical coverage of the American regime is censored.

You its honestly really disappointing, the thinned skinned nature of HN is really shocking never new about it until started using the active view instead of the standard view. This specific critism isn't even really that political. They are pointing out the economic consequences of poor policy. I think its tricky to navigate though because I'd prefer not everything become politcal

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#155

Post by sointeresting »

djaouen wrote: post #105
embedding-shape wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am an American and didn’t vote for this bullsh*t. Isn't the whole principle about democracy and freedom that you all stick together no matter what political party/parties is in power? If you're just throwing your hands up in the air because your party isn't the one in control, what kind of democracy is that? The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals. Otherwise, may I interest you in an i…

> The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals. When your opponent wants you dead, it's a different story! I am just exercising my right to self-defense.

- two assassination attempts on Trump - Kirk assassinated - Ella Cook shot and killed last week at Brown

hmmmmm

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#156

Post by meowface »

sointeresting wrote: post #155
djaouen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals. When your opponent wants you dead, it's a different story! I am just exercising my right to self-defense.

- two assassination attempts on Trump - Kirk assassinated - Ella Cook shot and killed last week at Brown hmmmmm

Right-wingers just are not serious people.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#157

Post by zeroCalories »

exceptione wrote: post #153
zeroCalories wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship. If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.

> 1. The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it. > 2. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship. I have to leave in a minute, but maybe you can explain what you mean? 1 and 2 are in conflict, no? > If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it. Do you mean that when the US' public can't hear from the US pa…

Yes your interpretation is correct, and I think it answers your first question.

The idea that Americans are unreachable is false. Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount. All of America's most influential cities lean liberal. The most influential right wing media is social media, and left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there. The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#158

Post by bendmorris »

robswc wrote: post #98
bendmorris wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the previous Trump term "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity." Conservatives in the past have also tried to belittle research grants to justify eliminating them, such as "studying X about fruit flies." It might sound sill…

> "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity." Do you have a source for this? How can you prove it was simply because it was "diversity related" and not because it someone, somewhere determined the budget needed to be cut because…

>One environmental researcher NPR spoke to, whose employer receives federal funding, confirmed that they have been advised to avoid the terms "climate change," "sustainable" and "sustainability." Even "biodiversity" is of concern to some of their colleagues because it includes the word "diversity."

(Please don't just respond to the quote - lots of context in the full article.)

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-5349473/trump-free-spee...

This language-based filtering began in the first term and has been widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/cdc-banned-w...

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#159

Post by [deleted] »

thisisit wrote: post #63

It is pretty much clear that the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it. There is no reason apart from that. People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that. While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, t…

[deleted]

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#160

Post by jaybrendansmith »

xphos wrote: post #154
lbrito wrote: post #138

Sad state of affairs that this gets flagged. Any critical coverage of the American regime is censored.

You its honestly really disappointing, the thinned skinned nature of HN is really shocking never new about it until started using the active view instead of the standard view. This specific critism isn't even really that political. They are pointing out the economic consequences of poor policy. I think its tricky to navigate though because I'd prefer not everything become politcal

Yes, I really don't understand why we cannot discuss the current reality like, well, hackers would. Like developers do when discussing design patterns or types of databases. Flagging content that should interest hackers ... like the perceived scientific reputation of the US ... seems overprotective and fussy to me.
Post reply on HN