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

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 676 posts

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

#21

Post by paulryanrogers »

ncallaway wrote: post #15
delichon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who have the power of the purse should be accountable to the voters.

That’s Congress and they are. The executive branch does not hold the power of the purse, and the fact that you can casually use that phrase in reference to the executive branch shows how far we’ve fallen as a country in a decade. A very sad state of affairs.

This Congress has deferred to the president so hard, it's difficult to see where one ends and the other begins. Based on recent primaries the R party is only becoming more sycophantic.

At times they don't even cotify their subservience through the usual measures like legislation and committees, except where needed to slap down any roadblocks to the unitary executive.

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

#22

Post by rayiner »

jordanpg wrote: post #14
rayiner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a lovely thought but it assumes, as with so many other things about our republican form of government, that the political appointees are good faith actors, at least with respect to funding of science. There are many reasons to suspect that the goal here is not just control of funding, but the defenestration of science more broadly because scientific findings tend to conflict with assertions politicians would l…

> That's a lovely thought but it assumes, as with so many other things about our republican form of government, that the political appointees are good faith actors, at least with respect to funding of science.

It doesn't assume that. It's simply a factual matter that the rules that govern the country are those of the constitution. And the institutional principles of particular fields are subordinate to the constitutional structure.

What you're overlooking is that everything is just people. Political appointees are people. But "institutions" are also people. "Science" is just people. And the important question is: who are the people who have the power to decide how taxpayer money is spent?

The only possible answer in a republic is that people accountable to the political system are allocated that power. People in the scientific establishment--people with degrees from universities and credentials from professional organizations--cannot be granted power to spend taxpayer money independent of the political system. They only have power over those decisions to the extent the political system chooses to confer that power.

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

#23

Post by paulryanrogers »

rayiner wrote: post #10
jordanpg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, these are agency rules. Congress can intervene, but only with major legislative action, which is unlikely. There will be hearings and Senators will express great concern, but the Administration will probably be able to do whatever they want. If anything slows this down, it will be the courts.

If Congress wants to earmark that money for a particular purpose it can enact that into legislation. If it wants to empower the executive to make the decision, they can do that too. Those are the only people who get to decide. Congress can’t turn over the expenditure of taxpayer funds to people who aren’t politically accountable.

> Congress can’t turn over the expenditure of taxpayer funds to people who aren’t politically accountable.

If Congress doesn't stop the executive and the Supreme Court overrules any legal blockades then ... I guess they can and are doing so RN.

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

#25

Post by Georgelemental »

> “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 how the government is making decisions, say so. But don't pretend it has anything to do with "government overreach"

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

#26

Post by rayiner »

quantum_state wrote: post #24

It would spell the start of major corruption and the end of American sciences. God, please do something about it!

You don't need God's intervention. If you trust the scientific establishment to make decisions on how to allocate taxpayer dollars, then vote for an executive who promises to do that. Definitely don't vote for the guy who campaigned on taking discretion away from unelected bureaucrats.

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

#27

Post by Georgelemental »

jordanpg wrote: post #14
rayiner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a lovely thought but it assumes, as with so many other things about our republican form of government, that the political appointees are good faith actors, at least with respect to funding of science. There are many reasons to suspect that the goal here is not just control of funding, but the defenestration of science more broadly because scientific findings tend to conflict with assertions politicians would l…

[dead]

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

Georgelemental wrote: post #25

> “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…

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by paulryanrogers »

Georgelemental wrote: post #25

> “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…

Science has often been funded by private and state benefactors. Regardless of the source, it's most often successful when the funds have few or no strings attached.

Perhaps more political oversight will make research more accountabile to the population at large. In this era I suspect it's far more likely to benefit the few, those born into power and fame who are consolidating their power. Scientists with resources and accountable only to other scientists are uniquely dangerous to those unwilling to give up their power.

Post reply on HN