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

71–80 of 676 posts

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

#71

Post by FireBeyond »

rayiner wrote: post #22
jordanpg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constituti…

> It's simply a factual matter that the rules that govern the country are those of the constitution.

How many times has this administration blatantly ignored the Constitution, starting with, for a simple example, separation of powers?

You're all locked in on "scientists should be beholden to the government, as that is the lay and law of the land" which ignoring the rather large mote that is "this current government couldn't give one single fuck about following the laws of the land", like issuing directives to federal agencies to consider federal court rulings as "advisory" or "not final" or "not applicable".

When the corruption of the law of the land starts at the top, you're busy insisting that those trying to follow the stated intention of the institutions that employ them ignore that because, well, what RFK Jr or worse, Stephen Miller, are the way we do things now, law, constitution be damned.

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

#72

Post by rayiner »

gammarator wrote: post #65
rayiner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 constituti…

The political system, representing the taxpayer (primarily via Congress), has always dictated scientific strategy --do we build the Superconducting Supercollider or cancel it; do we return a sample from Mars or not; do we sequence the human genome. How big a budget do we devote to medical research compared to physics, etc. Scientists advocate, but politicians decide. However, the nuts-and-bolts day-to-day tactical de…

The division of responsibility you describe has no legal significance. All decision-making authority ultimately rests and must rest with the political system. Of course, the political system may choose to delegate certain decisions to experts and panels and whatnot. But that's a choice. The institutional principles of science are irrelevant except to the extent the political decision-makers find those principles persuasive (which they often do).

Our laws actually are written to reflect more or less what I'm describing. The laws governing HHS grants, for example, provide for various expert committees and whatnot. But they also provide the appointed director of the HHS tremendous discretion to override those decisions. That's not new--those laws are decades old.

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

#74

Post by rayiner »

kxrm wrote: post #49
rayiner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 constituti…

You seem to be forgetting that one man is making these calls, not the people.

Yes, the man who the people picked to be the CEO of the executive branch for a 4-year term.

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

#75

Post by pstuart »

rayiner wrote: post #40
pstuart wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are very much in uncharted waters and the rules have been thrown out the window. At the risk of repeating myself, wherever we are it is effectively collectively by choice. It's all about hearts and minds, but really hearts. I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized (I'm a slow learner), but hopefully that can be outnumbered.

> I've come to the horrific realization that hate and stupidity are easily weaponized The FDR coalition was literally southern segregationists , immigrants, and black people, all in the same party. If "hate and stupidity" wasn't a barrier to people voting together in their material self-interest in 1936, it sure as hell isn't a barrier in 2026.

Wow man, FDR twice in a week and both cases awkwardly used.

But yes, he wielded populism masterfully. As you made a point about southern segregationists it should be noted that it was general economic populism without emphasis on race.

When Johnson championed the Civil Rights act it set the stage for the Southern Strategy where once race was a top tier issue that hate and stupidity was weaponized to move all of those segregationists to the Republican Party.

Rayiner, once again your point does not land because it is not cogent. Not only that, you missed the whole point of "hate and stupidity" as literally a unifying force as a tribal fury that is directed towards "others". In a contemporary case, it is against "liberals". I can only assume that you might have personal insight into this.

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

#76

Post by whatshisface »

This may seem extreme, but it must be considered in the full context of the package of policy proposals that would also eliminate the grants themselves. This balances out any concerns of bias. See you in 50 years when we read about the consequences (on European electronics.) :')

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

#78

Post by pdpi »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #60
SubiculumCode wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Republicans start proposing Communist policies, they are MAGA, not Republicans.

Neither cited countries are/were communist, they are authoritarian. That’s the political system of government, capitalism and communism is the economic system.

The two aren’t independent.

Marx’s idea of communism required a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Lenin took that notion and, under the pretence of needing absolute power to prevent a counter-revolution, turned it into the totalitarian regime of the USSR. Since then, communism and totalitarianism have gone hand in hand.

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

#79

Post by rayiner »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #53
rayiner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 constituti…

The statement, "everything is just people" begs the question. That question is about appropriate roles. No one is debating that Congress has the power of the purse. That is one of their primary roles. They appropriate, but obviously cannot and should not make every detailed decision, particularly where expertise is required and political neutrality is preferred. Accountability is another primary Congressional role. T…

> That question is about appropriate roles.

That's exactly what I meant when I said: "the important question is: who are the people who have the power to decide how taxpayer money is spent?" The answer obviously is: political actors. Ultimately it's Congress. And sometimes Congress has delegated that role to the President.

Within that framework, the institutional principles of "science" are irrelevant, except insofar as those principles are persuasive to political actors and ultimately voters.

The problem scientific institutionalists face is that they've squandered a lot of public trust over the decades. The left is skeptical of revolving doors between expert agencies and corporations and corporate sponsorship of scientific studies, while the right is skeptical that experts' politics aren't coloring their work. And in such an environment, it's entirely within voters' rights to elect political actors who promise to delegate fewer decisions to scientists.

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

#80

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

glitchc wrote: post #43
wrs wrote: post #34

And a generation of young scientists starts packing their bags...

To where?

If I were a young unencumbered scientist, I say this as someone born and raised in the US and having lived in EU for awhile, I would be going anywhere but the States. I’d rather take 1/4 the money to not be a part of whatever disgusting thing is happening currently.
Post reply on HN