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

U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 299 posts

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#261

Post by vkou »

cyberax wrote: post #236
vkou wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MN can't even give two murderers a fair trial because apparently Trump's goons can kill anyone they want, and then go scurry off like roaches. If states had autonomy, those animals and their accomplices would be behind bars right now.

> MN can't even give two murderers a fair trial because apparently Trump's goons can kill anyone they want, and then go scurry off like roaches. Give it time. > If states had autonomy, those animals and their accomplices would be behind bars right now. So that southern states could just shoot the Federal agents de-segregating schools, right? It's always a balancing act. The key here is that the power is _distributed_…

Murder is a capital crime regardless of who you work for.

Those fucks were violating both federal and state law.

'Give it time' will only work if the GOP is removed from power. Otherwise, not a single thing will happen.

Otherwise, you are demonstrating that states are in practice fully subservient to the federal government. Because the latter can, de facto, do whatever it wants in them.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#262

Post by notahacker »

pdonis wrote: post #241
notahacker wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are willing to be drive drunk. This doesn't mean that taking into account the views of people who don't want to be killed by drunk people when determining who gets to use the roads is "overestimating the value we actually put on human life" (also, without the safety reporting infrastructure and mandatory disclosures the average person would have absolutely no ability to learn whether the crashes said anyt…

> Some people are willing to be drive drunk. In addition to all the other things I pointed out, there's a very simple and obvious difference between this and the airplane case: a person choosing to drive drunk imposes some risk on everyone else who uses the same road they do. But a person choosing to fly on an unsafe airplane imposes no risk on anyone but themselves; their choice doesn't force anyone else to fly on t…

> In addition to all the other things I pointed out, there's a very simple and obvious difference between this and the airplane case: a person choosing to drive drunk imposes some risk on everyone else who uses the same road they do. But a person choosing to fly on an unsafe airplane imposes no risk on anyone but themselves; their choice doesn't force anyone else to fly on the same airplane.

There is a very simple and very obvious similarity which is that people do not consent to be hit by drunk drivers or poorly maintained aeroplanes. Hence we regulate.

Honestly, I find it unfathomable that you could write so many words across two comments trying to reinvent aviation safety from first principles and not grasp this.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#263

Post by pocksuppet »

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #98
pocksuppet wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress always had the power to remove delegated power from an institution if it didn't like how that institution was performing. It's also had the power to disband the executive branch regime at any point since January 20. Everything that is happening now is happening with the complete approval of Congress.

Correct, and congress hasn't been exercising that power for the better part of a century now. The War Powers Resolution was 1973, for example. I don't know what the exact solution is, but something needs to change in the structure and incentives of congress to incentivize them to exercise power again. Eliminating the filibuster and drastically increasing the total number of representatives seem like the best ways to…

Nobody should be incentivized to exercise power for the sake of exercising power. They should be incentivized to exercise power to change things they don't agree with. And they already have that incentive. And they are already using it. What is there to change?

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#264

Post by pocksuppet »

vkou wrote: post #261
cyberax wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MN can't even give two murderers a fair trial because apparently Trump's goons can kill anyone they want, and then go scurry off like roaches. Give it time. > If states had autonomy, those animals and their accomplices would be behind bars right now. So that southern states could just shoot the Federal agents de-segregating schools, right? It's always a balancing act. The key here is that the power is _distributed_…

Murder is a capital crime regardless of who you work for. Those fucks were violating both federal and state law. 'Give it time' will only work if the GOP is removed from power. Otherwise, not a single thing will happen. Otherwise, you are demonstrating that states are in practice fully subservient to the federal government. Because the latter can, de facto, do whatever it wants in them.

> Murder is a capital crime regardless of who you work for.

Not true btw, the military can do it.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#265

Post by notahacker »

pdonis wrote: post #223
notahacker wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are willing to be drive drunk. This doesn't mean that taking into account the views of people who don't want to be killed by drunk people when determining who gets to use the roads is "overestimating the value we actually put on human life" (also, without the safety reporting infrastructure and mandatory disclosures the average person would have absolutely no ability to learn whether the crashes said anyt…

> Some people are willing to be drive drunk. This doesn't mean that taking into account the views of people who don't want to be killed by drunk people when determining who gets to use the roads is "overestimating the value we actually put on human life" You're assuming there is just one such value. There isn't. People who are willing to drive drunk put less value on human life than people who aren't. We deal with th…

> Straw man. In a free market where people knew they could not depend on the government to "regulate" (and, as I've pointed out, it didn't in this case), people would refuse to fly on airplanes whose safety records were not well-documented and attested public knowledge. To do otherwise would be obviously foolish. The only reason people don't seek out more such information now is that they believe the government has their back so they don't have to. And that belief, as we've seen, is not justified. In a free market, indeed, a safety reporting infrastructure not very different from what we have now would be expected to evolve--but because it was not run by a government and could not take advantage of the free pass the government gets to skimp on regulations, it would have to build and maintain a justified track record of accuracy.

LMAO. Perhaps leave lecturing what transport looks like in the absence of regulation to people who've actually seen what transport looks like in the absence of any effective regulation (hint: the public does not rely on independent safety reports or indeed have access to much accident reporting at all, the transport is usually [over]full, and yes it kills a lot more people than commercial aircraft, sometimes including people that didn't consent to use the transport). Even specifically within the sphere of aviation there's this not-that-little country called Indonesia whose airlines were banned from operating in the West for a long time because of an extremely well known lack of adequate safety standards, and an accompanying tendency to plunge passengers to a fiery death. It was one of the fastest growing air transport markets in the world.

People whose extreme ignorance of transport safety is exceeded only by their overconfidence they'd do a better job than the regulators are of course precisely the people such regulation aims to protect.

> You must be joking. They were worldwide news

They were worldwide news because of mandatory disclosures and independent safety regulation which in unregulated transport environments simply do not exist. If these did not exist, you would have no reason to assume that aircraft crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia have any bearing on the safety of your flight in the USA. (You're evidently not aware of the other six serious crashes involving Lion Air, the operator of the first Boeing 737 Max across its first two decades of operation, and certainly won't have boycotted the aircraft types involved as a result). If you wanted to get a bus or ferry in Indonesia, you wouldn't have the first clue which ones operated to adequate safety standards or not. This is not because Indonesians trust their government; it is because the libertarian fantasy of independent third parties seamlessly filling in the knowledge gaps is not a reality. Take it from someone that actually spent the first part of their career working for a company that collected data on the aviation sector...

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#266

Post by ascotan »

Love reading all the TDS comments about Americans are the new Nazis and Orange Man is bad. However, this article isn't very good:

NIH has publish guidance: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-1...

It seems like the intent here is to prevent "subawards" going to foreign linked entities where the USG can't track it. The NIH is introducing a new linked award system where the foreign entity receives their own independent grant number and that primary on the application must be a US entity.

This introduces new activity codes (PF5 regular grant and UF5 cooperative agreement) where upon granting the new money the foreign entity will receive their own RF2 grant or UL2 grant (based on the original grant type).

Under the old system a grant to a US institution (like a university) could be doled out to foreigner institutions as subawards without the USG seeing where the money was going. This is a violation of FFATA and the USG wants to track these dollars because US universities are not reporting it.

Additionally the USG has grown increasing suspicious of certain countries (think russia, china) that are getting subawards that are effectively transferring US IP to these entities via pliant US individuals at an institution. This forces the PI to get a linked award and pull these folks out of the shadows where they are now identified and where the USG can run a background check on them.

This also deals with university outsourcing where an institution can get a grant and then simply pass the money off (mostly entirely) to a foreign entity where the US university became essentially a shadow distribution vehicle. Under the new rules to do this the PI must show that but funnel funds to a foreign institution that institution must offer something not readily available in the US.

Once a foreign funded entity has received money in this way and then violates policy, or breached security it falls on the university to police their grants (which mostly they can't do effectively). So the USG wants to cut out the middleman and for the foreign entity to become a direct recipient of the grant making them legal liable to the USG for all the terms and conditions. If you violate the grant the NIH can sanction them directly without going through the university.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#267

Post by vkou »

pocksuppet wrote: post #264
vkou wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Murder is a capital crime regardless of who you work for. Those fucks were violating both federal and state law. 'Give it time' will only work if the GOP is removed from power. Otherwise, not a single thing will happen. Otherwise, you are demonstrating that states are in practice fully subservient to the federal government. Because the latter can, de facto, do whatever it wants in them.

> Murder is a capital crime regardless of who you work for. Not true btw, the military can do it.

Homicide is not always murder, but what we saw in Minnesota was murder by any definition.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#268

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

amelius wrote: post #150
jfengel wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how quickly and easily vast swaths of our political leadership would sell out to completely destroy our Constitutional principles This is not something done to us by leadership. This is a democracy; we voted for this. We have another election coming up momentarily. We have the opportunity to put a stop to this. There's good reason to think that the election will not be entirely fair, but there are limits: if people a…

It is an information problem. A majority of voters believes in the nonsense that is spread on social media, and are not properly informed about important topics.

When you have a bell curve of education and intelligence, around a third of the population will always believe simple lies based on vibes and outrage, and will vote accordingly.

If your media system profits directly from lies and outrage, and there's a class which specifically weaponises lies and outrage for self-servingly cynical ends, the outcome is predictably suicidal.

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#269

Post by gcanyon »

andix wrote: post #138
gcanyon wrote: post #38

If it was their actual goal to destroy the US leadership role in research worldwide, they couldn't do more than they are.

Why would you assume this isn't their goal?

Yikes

Hope? Wishful thinking?

Re: U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators

#270

Post by andix »

gcanyon wrote: post #269
andix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you assume this isn't their goal?

Yikes Hope? Wishful thinking?

There are many historic examples of "dumbing down" a country by their government. I've tried to list some here, but got flagged.

Ask your favorite Chatbot to assemble one. A lot of them share similarities with the current situation in the US.

This is not happening by accident.

Post reply on HN