4 ms·

Well, this administration clearly doesn't want anyone within the executive branch to have the ability, vis a vis independence, to contradict their agenda, on an

Well, this administration clearly doesn't want anyone within the executive branch to have the ability, vis a vis independence, to contradict their agenda, on any level. The result is that anyone empowered to do research will answer to them directly, and anything don't like will never see the light of day, if it is even brought up in the first place (because, of course, this is also an administration that only wants to confirmation of their policies). So, essentially, we can expect only more of this. Quasi-indepenent commissions will be replaced by groups we never hear from, unless they have something to say that backs up an administration policy. It'll be a rough four years for policy.

microcolonel 10y ago
This is what "public funding for research" means. If we didn't want politics to affect research, we shouldn't have sold it to politicians.
- rl3 10y ago
  That's a good point. Why does the government directly fund scientific research? A better system might be to spin off private, non-profit entities and inject them with massive amounts of cash—enough to weather stormy political climates.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    That would be interesting, though I fear that system would suffer the same problems. It could be corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding (either the individual researchers, or the organization). Physics research is an example of something which is hard to corrupt politically. However, because government is at least somewhat in charge of so many things today, fields like medicine, mental health, anthropology, even geology can become political. Then there are the obvious things like matters relating to guns, where the government has a clear interest in "proving" that the public shouldn't have guns, which is one of the CDC was barred from doing research related to this. If I recall correctly, one of the researchers employed by the CDC was recorded insinuating that his team would manipulate the observations to reach a foregone conclusion. The other obvious one is the relationship between government research, lobbying (official and unofficial), and regulatory bodies. I do get why it is attractive to fund research with government money, however. It can often seem like there just isn't enough money in research, and indeed there isn't much; but if your research dollar is spent on corrupt research then it may be worse than nothing. By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind.
    - rl3 10y ago
      >... though I fear that system would suffer the same problems. It could be corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding ... Emphasis on massive amounts of money. For example, let's say USG dumps 80 billion into YC Research with the expectation of being able to sustain research for 16 years. I'm pretty sure YCR would struggle to spend 5B/year, and I'm really sure they wouldn't give a single shit about trying to ingratiate themselves at the expense of their work's integrity for the purposes of receiving ongoing funding. There would be no reason to, because their funding interval would span at least two administrations, possibly four. That example of course changes if you assume YCR would be picking up responsibility for critical science previously overseen by government agencies. However, the point is that ample, lump-sum funding of private non-profit organizations can completely destroy any perverse political incentives that would normally plague a government agency. >By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind. Sure, but what's the point if the research output is some company's IP or even trade secret? Private money doesn't have the obligation of serving the public interest. Government money does, at least in spirit. Philanthropy is of course nice, but you can't rely on it.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  Politics always affects research, even private research. This is simply a fact of life - there is no taking it away from politics entirely. What this does is removes the second portion of research/policy connection - when policy changes based on the results of the science. It can disallow for proper public discussion. For example, I fully expect the justice department to not convict someone over a flawed forensic science, once we find out it is flawed. Only, with the internal review, we might not find out it is flawed at all. The 'official' report might just say this is stellar when it isn't.

microcolonel 10y ago

This is what "public funding for research" means. If we didn't want politics to affect research, we shouldn't have sold it to politicians.

rl3 10y ago
That's a good point. Why does the government directly fund scientific research? A better system might be to spin off private, non-profit entities and inject them with massive amounts of cash—enough to weather stormy political climates.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  That would be interesting, though I fear that system would suffer the same problems. It could be corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding (either the individual researchers, or the organization). Physics research is an example of something which is hard to corrupt politically. However, because government is at least somewhat in charge of so many things today, fields like medicine, mental health, anthropology, even geology can become political. Then there are the obvious things like matters relating to guns, where the government has a clear interest in "proving" that the public shouldn't have guns, which is one of the CDC was barred from doing research related to this. If I recall correctly, one of the researchers employed by the CDC was recorded insinuating that his team would manipulate the observations to reach a foregone conclusion. The other obvious one is the relationship between government research, lobbying (official and unofficial), and regulatory bodies. I do get why it is attractive to fund research with government money, however. It can often seem like there just isn't enough money in research, and indeed there isn't much; but if your research dollar is spent on corrupt research then it may be worse than nothing. By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind.
  - rl3 10y ago
    >... though I fear that system would suffer the same problems. It could be corrupted by a desire to receive ongoing funding ... Emphasis on massive amounts of money. For example, let's say USG dumps 80 billion into YC Research with the expectation of being able to sustain research for 16 years. I'm pretty sure YCR would struggle to spend 5B/year, and I'm really sure they wouldn't give a single shit about trying to ingratiate themselves at the expense of their work's integrity for the purposes of receiving ongoing funding. There would be no reason to, because their funding interval would span at least two administrations, possibly four. That example of course changes if you assume YCR would be picking up responsibility for critical science previously overseen by government agencies. However, the point is that ample, lump-sum funding of private non-profit organizations can completely destroy any perverse political incentives that would normally plague a government agency. >By relying on private money, the special interests can be diversified automatically, which seems more healthy to my mind. Sure, but what's the point if the research output is some company's IP or even trade secret? Private money doesn't have the obligation of serving the public interest. Government money does, at least in spirit. Philanthropy is of course nice, but you can't rely on it.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Politics always affects research, even private research. This is simply a fact of life - there is no taking it away from politics entirely. What this does is removes the second portion of research/policy connection - when policy changes based on the results of the science. It can disallow for proper public discussion. For example, I fully expect the justice department to not convict someone over a flawed forensic science, once we find out it is flawed. Only, with the internal review, we might not find out it is flawed at all. The 'official' report might just say this is stellar when it isn't.