6 ms·

Us at the DOE are freaking out about the questionnaire Trump sent out, hinting at 10% off-the-bat cuts (to all accounts other than 050, aka Defense), ARPA-E dis

by batbomb 10y ago

Us at the DOE are freaking out about the questionnaire Trump sent out, hinting at 10% off-the-bat cuts (to all accounts other than 050, aka Defense), ARPA-E dissolution, political retribution to anyone related to climate science, Rick Perry rumors, etc... We've been running in continuing resolutions so long we've effectively been losing funding at the rate of 2%/year (to be fair, this isn't exclusive to us) Even with all this money from billionaires, most climate research makes extremely heavy use of DOE facilities, namely light sources, and works best with the close development loop. So far, these circumstances seem specific to the DOE, so that's at least a little bit comforting. NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it.

mikeyouse 10y ago
> NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it. Potentially, but there has already been a lot of meddling with the budget that the NSF director gets to put to use. Basically every year congress tries to ensure that the NSF stops spending money on climate change and 'social sciences'. There has been broad pressure to cede to congress's demands that the stop funding anything that they disagree with as well as general budget cuts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-science-funding-gets-fiercer-in-u-s-congress/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-scien... The NIH/CDC have been repeatedly denied funding for Zika and Ebola research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-officials-congress-is-showing-how-not-to-fight-the-zika-virus/2016/08/31/c2efc146-6f7f-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-offici... NASA will definitely have all of their climate research gutted, and given Trump's relationship with Lamar Smith and Jeff Sessions, I'd expect decent funding toward big projects that favor Alabama and Texas sites.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
paulsutter 10y ago
To be more persuasive, you might want to point out the big successes of the DoE. The dramatic reduction in PV costs, for example, were caused by the volumes created mostly by European feed-in tariffs, plus the manufacturing determination in China. Im sure DoE has some big wins, and people who hear about them are more likely to drive support.
- lvs 10y ago
  A poor guy comes here to spill his guts about potentially losing his job and all the serious science that will be stalled, and you thought his desperation was for pointers on how to be more persuasive? Yeah, the HN advice culture has really jumped the shark with this one. This isn't a reality show.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    I think it was perfectly relevant considering "We've been running in continuing resolutions so long we've effectively been losing funding at the rate of 2%/year".
    - batbomb 10y ago
      That has nothing to do with what the labs are or are not doing and everything to do with gridlock in D.C.
      - mistermann 10y ago
        Unless they were doing really interesting things that captured the hearts and minds of the public who then therefore demanded funding increases.
        lvs 10y ago
        Gosh. You're really not getting it. They're not losing funding because of anything specific to their research (yet). Congress passed only a single budget covering the whole government in the last 8 years! They're only keeping the government funded by continuing resolutions that keep all allocations flat-line. The drop in funding he's talking about is from inflation when the budget is flat year-over-year.
concinds 10y ago
> NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. While I support science funding, this is a good time to remind people that politicized science is fat from exclusive to the right[0] (excellent article, don't just skim). A recent example is this paper [1]funded by a $400k NSF grant which tried to "analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control—undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies—have shaped glacier-related sciences and knowledges over time". Also, for those reading about the "Trump questionnaire" who might not have heard it elsewhere, here is the NYT story about this[2], which much more comprehensive and slightly more balanced than the parent makes it out to be. Among other things, it hints towards "significant shifts of the agency [DOE] towards nuclear power", and a "push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department's laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science." BTW, the downsizing of federal departments has been planned by Trump for a long time, and brought up by him during the campaign, when he said several months ago that he wants to reduce the federal workforce and institute "hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)". This was in his "Contract With The America Voter", and is nothing to be surprised about. [0]: http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html [1]: http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change-energy-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dreamcompiler 10y ago
Remember what DOE was like when we had a Nobel prize winner running it? He did a lot of good, but he still didn't change the culture much. I expect the same inertia will work in our favor with Trump. Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  Relevant "Yes Minister" quote: > [Hacker is about to ask for advice from his predecessor, a member of the Opposition party] > James Hacker: The Opposition aren't the opposition. > Annie Hacker: No of course not, silly of me. They're just called the opposition. > James Hacker: They're only the opposition in exile. The Civil Service is the opposition in residence. Although in this case, you can replace "opposition" with "resistance".
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  > Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top. This is why the federal bureaucracies are essentially unconstitutional: people within the rule-making structure are unaccountable to voters, but their decisions have lasting influence on the economy and on people's lives. For instance, many federal agencies define new felony-level crimes (that wreck lives) without a new law being passed by the legislature. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people within government have a good heart and genuine motives. Also don't think I'm supporting Trump here. Just take a step back and look at the sentiment of your comment holistically: you're hopeful that institutional inertia will allow you to continue toward your goals within government in spite of the people's choice of the "idiot at the top."
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    Well, the whole point of an independent civil service is to provide a check-and-balance on the ability of the elected officials to make bad policies due to a lack of relevant expertise, or a personal ideological frenzy. In an ideal world, much of the civil service would be subject to a completely separate form of democratic accountability than ordinary legislative and executive elections, to ensure that separation between expertise and ideology.
crb002 10y ago
DOE has been an epic failure in the past 30 years. Only a sliver of the budget going to solar cell and battery research. Not sure how much of that was because of congressional earmarks, but Tesla is putting them to shame.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  When one institution costs money to operate, and another makes money by operating, the latter will very quickly outstrip the former. Granted, not all desired behaviors can be made more profitable than their alternatives. But this is an example of how to encourage this sort of technological progress. We can be promoting electric cars not just because they are green but because they are awesome, or a free-market economy not just because it is more fair but because it works better, or no-till farming not just because it is better for the environment but because it produces higher profits, or space exploration not just because it is educational but because there are huge opportunities. When profitability is a part of the equation, most other motivators are weak in comparison.

by batbomb 10y ago

mikeyouse 10y ago

> NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. No clue about the NIH. NASA is similarly not in as dire of a situation from the looks of it. Potentially, but there has already been a lot of meddling with the budget that the NSF director gets to put to use. Basically every year congress tries to ensure that the NSF stops spending money on climate change and 'social sciences'. There has been broad pressure to cede to congress's demands that the stop funding anything that they disagree with as well as general budget cuts. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-science-funding-gets-fiercer-in-u-s-congress/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/battle-over-scien... The NIH/CDC have been repeatedly denied funding for Zika and Ebola research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-officials-congress-is-showing-how-not-to-fight-the-zika-virus/2016/08/31/c2efc146-6f7f-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-and-niaid-offici... NASA will definitely have all of their climate research gutted, and given Trump's relationship with Lamar Smith and Jeff Sessions, I'd expect decent funding toward big projects that favor Alabama and Texas sites.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

paulsutter 10y ago

To be more persuasive, you might want to point out the big successes of the DoE. The dramatic reduction in PV costs, for example, were caused by the volumes created mostly by European feed-in tariffs, plus the manufacturing determination in China. Im sure DoE has some big wins, and people who hear about them are more likely to drive support.

lvs 10y ago
A poor guy comes here to spill his guts about potentially losing his job and all the serious science that will be stalled, and you thought his desperation was for pointers on how to be more persuasive? Yeah, the HN advice culture has really jumped the shark with this one. This isn't a reality show.
- mistermann 10y ago
  I think it was perfectly relevant considering "We've been running in continuing resolutions so long we've effectively been losing funding at the rate of 2%/year".
  - batbomb 10y ago
    That has nothing to do with what the labs are or are not doing and everything to do with gridlock in D.C.
    - mistermann 10y ago
      Unless they were doing really interesting things that captured the hearts and minds of the public who then therefore demanded funding increases.
      - lvs 10y ago
        Gosh. You're really not getting it. They're not losing funding because of anything specific to their research (yet). Congress passed only a single budget covering the whole government in the last 8 years! They're only keeping the government funded by continuing resolutions that keep all allocations flat-line. The drop in funding he's talking about is from inflation when the budget is flat year-over-year.

concinds 10y ago

> NSF is somewhat insulated from the standpoint that NSF directors are appointed every 6 years and the current one will get through most of Trump's term. While I support science funding, this is a good time to remind people that politicized science is fat from exclusive to the right[0] (excellent article, don't just skim). A recent example is this paper [1]funded by a $400k NSF grant which tried to "analyze how power, domination, colonialism, and control—undergirded by and coincident with masculinist ideologies—have shaped glacier-related sciences and knowledges over time". Also, for those reading about the "Trump questionnaire" who might not have heard it elsewhere, here is the NYT story about this[2], which much more comprehensive and slightly more balanced than the parent makes it out to be. Among other things, it hints towards "significant shifts of the agency [DOE] towards nuclear power", and a "push to commercialize the research of the Energy Department's laboratories, long considered the crown jewels of federal science." BTW, the downsizing of federal departments has been planned by Trump for a long time, and brought up by him during the campaign, when he said several months ago that he wants to reduce the federal workforce and institute "hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)". This was in his "Contract With The America Voter", and is nothing to be surprised about. [0]: http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html [1]: http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change-energy-department-donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/climate-change...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dreamcompiler 10y ago

Remember what DOE was like when we had a Nobel prize winner running it? He did a lot of good, but he still didn't change the culture much. I expect the same inertia will work in our favor with Trump. Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top.

vanderZwan 10y ago
Relevant "Yes Minister" quote: > [Hacker is about to ask for advice from his predecessor, a member of the Opposition party] > James Hacker: The Opposition aren't the opposition. > Annie Hacker: No of course not, silly of me. They're just called the opposition. > James Hacker: They're only the opposition in exile. The Civil Service is the opposition in residence. Although in this case, you can replace "opposition" with "resistance".
clarkmoody 10y ago
> Passively resist as much as possible, and try to outlast the new idiots at the top. This is why the federal bureaucracies are essentially unconstitutional: people within the rule-making structure are unaccountable to voters, but their decisions have lasting influence on the economy and on people's lives. For instance, many federal agencies define new felony-level crimes (that wreck lives) without a new law being passed by the legislature. Don't get me wrong, plenty of people within government have a good heart and genuine motives. Also don't think I'm supporting Trump here. Just take a step back and look at the sentiment of your comment holistically: you're hopeful that institutional inertia will allow you to continue toward your goals within government in spite of the people's choice of the "idiot at the top."
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Well, the whole point of an independent civil service is to provide a check-and-balance on the ability of the elected officials to make bad policies due to a lack of relevant expertise, or a personal ideological frenzy. In an ideal world, much of the civil service would be subject to a completely separate form of democratic accountability than ordinary legislative and executive elections, to ensure that separation between expertise and ideology.

crb002 10y ago

DOE has been an epic failure in the past 30 years. Only a sliver of the budget going to solar cell and battery research. Not sure how much of that was because of congressional earmarks, but Tesla is putting them to shame.

LeifCarrotson 10y ago
When one institution costs money to operate, and another makes money by operating, the latter will very quickly outstrip the former. Granted, not all desired behaviors can be made more profitable than their alternatives. But this is an example of how to encourage this sort of technological progress. We can be promoting electric cars not just because they are green but because they are awesome, or a free-market economy not just because it is more fair but because it works better, or no-till farming not just because it is better for the environment but because it produces higher profits, or space exploration not just because it is educational but because there are huge opportunities. When profitability is a part of the equation, most other motivators are weak in comparison.