If you want to stay a scientist, you have to emigrate. The art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.
Hasn’t academia always been that way?
No.
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
621–630 of 676 posts
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#622It’s sad to watch my country commit suicide. Not only will my compatriots be poorer for it, but the rest of the world will be too.
Have you considered that all the people just watching are maybe enabling it?
The degree of protest will always revolve around the degree to which it impacts personal economics, food security, and risk of physical harm.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#623Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants Strong claims require strong evidence. The tenants some people want to challenge are climate change, gender identity, renewable energy, vaccinations, etc. So its a hard bargain, I believe science benefits from being a bit stubborn.
Alzheimer’s research would probably be the easiest one to point to. And I’d argue all fields could use more dissenting opinions and new options. I don’t know if this would be the path to that but keep in mind there have been many things historically where someone needed to take a leap of faith to go against the current dogma.
This should be done by lessening the feasibility metric in grading grants. If you want to escape incrementalism, you have to not punish scientists who ask for funding to do hard things with a higher chance of failure.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
rayiner has previously written that he thinks all non-property owners in the US to be disenfranchised. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46885305 > Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated). Really, nothing he writes is surprising.
I believe in a country where the top 75% or so of people vote and that directly influences the administration of government. You want a country where 100% of people vote, but their vote is merely a suggestion to the credentialed professionals and lawyers that actually run the country. I am by far the more egalitarian one. Sure, if you think Americans are sheep to be herded—what Woodrow Wilson called the “unphilosophi…
Lol mad scramble to somehow justify being a complete scumbag. The only vote we should be taking away is mouth breathing fedoraposters like you.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
rayiner has previously written that he thinks all non-property owners in the US to be disenfranchised. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46885305 > Instead, the electorate should be narrowed to property owning people who have an IQ above 85 (within one SD of median) and two grandparents born in the U.S. (so culturally assimilated). Really, nothing he writes is surprising.
I believe in a country where the top 75% or so of people vote and that directly influences the administration of government. You want a country where 100% of people vote, but their vote is merely a suggestion to the credentialed professionals and lawyers that actually run the country. I am by far the more egalitarian one. Sure, if you think Americans are sheep to be herded—what Woodrow Wilson called the “unphilosophi…
In your proposed change to who can vote, you'd not be able to vote and neither would your children. Does that mean you believe that you, and they, are part of the "unphilosophical bulk of humanity"? That you and they are among "the dumbest, least responsible people"?
I guess you don't even believe your own credentials as a lawyer make you qualified to vote.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#626Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=1231319&a... Appears it didn't receive any funds since 2022 after being extended for years (so your "daddy" is Biden) and wouldn't get any more money so was canceled to get it off the books. If anything this shows the list includes regular grants that were canceled for normal reasons, which further demonstrates the cuts were not of real science.
that doesn't imply anything at all, just that some grants weren't cancelled for political reasons
It implies that this list is the entirety of the cancelled NSF grants instead of a cherrypicked woke subset.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
that is what i’m accusing the dems of.
just as well you can say the wealthy people our government caters to also have a clientele mentality. and they get most of what they want.
populists are running for more seats these days and they’re winning so maybe there’s hope.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#628Earlier quoted context omitted.
$$$$$ > €€€ or ££ With a few exceptions like Switzerland, American levels of compensation for highly qualified people just can't be matched anywhere in the Western world. Saudi Arabia or UAE maybe, but these don't even try to pretend to be socially and politically liberal.
> 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…
Most people giving birth have insurance, and $20k would not be their out of pocket cost.
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#629Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. That's how its always been, it's just that most people are not attuned to academic politics.
Bullshit. Academic politics exist but not to the degree your comment suggests. These are not equivalent situations.
Yeah, let's look at the sociology field and oh....
Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
#630Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
>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.
"The regulatory framework works fine", says man who works at BigCo. JFC
You really think your state's department of whatever doesn't turn the screws a little harder on the smaller companies that have to just take it?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that the demographic breakdown of labor isn't something they care much about but literally everyone with a set of functioning eyes and ears in the construction industry has endless stories about having to jump through some stupid hoop that a more favored player didn't have to because of a capricious government official or group of them. It's kinda sus that you think that doesn't happen.