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

601–610 of 676 posts

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

#601

Post by fanatic2pope »

boothby wrote: post #410
evrydayhustling wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the brutal impact on those already invested in the American research community, this is one more nail in the coffin when it comes to competing for new talent. What researcher in their right mind would move their research and their future to the USA to join this clown rodeo? It is unbelievable to watch my country give up its most unfair (and yet mostly positive) advantage -- a nearly free option on the top tal…

As a Canadian on a hiring committee, it's fascinating to talk to Americans who hate the political environment but still don't want to relocate.

What are you hiring for?

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

#602

Post by quickthrowman »

fakedang wrote: post #545
mschuster91 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a few exceptions like Switzerland, American levels of compensation for highly qualified people just can't be matched anywhere in the Western world. Gross compensation yes. But if you begin deducting stuff like the absurd American housing costs, private healthcare, saving up for deductibles, the need to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car to do everything because almost nothing is accessible by public transpor…

Middle class in Europe means unable to buy a family apartment in a Tier 1 city.

My net worth is close to 1M in the US and I can’t afford a $3000/month mortgage payment (median $450k house with 10% down). Well I could afford it but I need to max out my 401k so I don’t starve when I retire, and stocks don’t need maintenance, insurance, and property tax payments.

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

#605

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

pindab0ter wrote: post #153
hdgvhicv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They voted for this. In larger numbers than in 2020 and 2016.

What is this "this" you're referring to? Was this on the ballot? Did Trump announce that he would do this? It seems very easy to just blame this on the voter like this.

The contents of Project 2025 were well publicised, so yes, the voters are very much to blame (assuming that the vote wasn't gamed by Musk et al)

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

#606

Post by quickthrowman »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #345
gammarator wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misreading how Broader Impacts (BI) works. From your link: > Some examples that illustrate contributions in each of the five areas are given below. Proposals need not address all of these areas, and PIs are advised to focus on those areas in which they are well prepared to make meaningful contributions. "Broadening participation of underrepresented groups" is only one of the five areas, and no proposal was re…

>is only one of the five areas, and no proposal was required to use it. Irrespective of whatever was going on in academia I take issue with this. Everyone who has a) a double digit number of brain cells b) has ever dealt with government approval in any capacity c) is't just a straight up liar knows that if the requirements set forth by a panel with discretionary authority says to do items 1-5 that you will not be app…

> Irrespective of whatever was going on in academia I take issue with this. Everyone who has a) a double digit number of brain cells b) has ever dealt with government approval in any capacity c) is't just a straight up liar knows that if the requirements set forth by a panel with discretionary authority says to do items 1-5 that you will not be approved without doing all of them, (unless of course you have the right last name or connections).

I regularly submit workforce participation plans for government construction projects that have minority and women labor hour goals with 100% white male labor hours and receive approval to proceed. Things are not as black and white in reality as the media has led you to believe. I deal with state and local municipal and county governments regularly, my state’s Dept of Labor and Industry does not care what your last name or company is.

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

#607

Post by fzzzy »

boothby wrote: post #410
evrydayhustling wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides the brutal impact on those already invested in the American research community, this is one more nail in the coffin when it comes to competing for new talent. What researcher in their right mind would move their research and their future to the USA to join this clown rodeo? It is unbelievable to watch my country give up its most unfair (and yet mostly positive) advantage -- a nearly free option on the top tal…

As a Canadian on a hiring committee, it's fascinating to talk to Americans who hate the political environment but still don't want to relocate.

It would help if Canadian salaries weren’t an utter joke, along with the cost of living.

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

#608

Post by anticensor »

overfeed wrote: post #93
cookiengineer wrote: post #68

But it's got electrolytes! My question is now: Which company is gonna buy the IRS now?

"Intuit IRS" has a ring to it. In the same umbrella org as Turbo Tax, for the obvious revenue-growth synergy, and long-term strategic alignment that unlocks tax-payer value.

That sounds a lot like Kemal Unakıtan model, that purported to privatise the Administration of Privatisation.

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

#609

Post by Arodex »

nielsbot wrote: post #575
hdgvhicv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They voted for this. In larger numbers than in 2020 and 2016.

May I propose an alternative for our politicians? Rather that saying “you better take your medicine like a grown up and be responsible and vote for our side” try being _actually compelling_ for a change. That’s it. Just offer the people what they want and stop catering to the ownership class.

You mean American voters have a clientele mentality.

Let me remind you any of you could run for a seat. You don't need to belong to any political party. You can even rise through the ranks inside a party. Trump is even an example of a complete outsider turning upside-down one of the two main parties!

Your complaint sounds a lot like "we tried nothing and we ran all out of ideas".

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

#610

Post by cineticdaffodil »

mold_aid wrote: post #442
cineticdaffodil wrote: post #251

I still think we should allow for grant hunting. If you can disprove a paper, you get the grant money attached to it. Make it a economic worthy endavour to destroy bad science.

How would you handle non-competitive grants

Safety deposists or insurrance by labs/universities- if your work is later refuted- your employer has to pay for that bad investment..
Post reply on HN