5 ms·

White House budget proposal could shatter the National Science Foundation

51 points by pseudolus 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
biohcacker84 2y ago
"Could" The National Science Foundation has received an annual budget of approximately $9 billion, the vast majority of which is spent on research and research-related activities. We shall see.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Please don't selectively quote in a misleading way. The full quote is: > In recent years, the National Science Foundation has received an annual budget of approximately $9 billion [...] In other words, that's the budget prior to the cuts. The immediately following sentence points out that the cut may be as deep as 66%: > The cuts could be as deep as 66 percent, with one person indicating the top-line budget number for the National Science Foundation could start at $3 billion.
Dalewyn 2y ago
Note that the President's budget request is literally that: A request. The power of the purse, insofar as legislating it, rests solely with the House of Representatives. They can listen to the request or completely ignore it or write up something in-between. The President's request has no weight, though it could be a useful indicator of the future.
- decimalenough 2y ago
  In legal theory, perhaps, but given that House is controlled by Republicans, how many of them dare go on record opposing the will of their master?
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    The Republican Party's loyalty/obedience to Trump so far is unprecedented even in general terms, so it's reasonable to expect a lot of his requests will be reflected in the final budget.
- basementcat 2y ago
  We have seen the executive branch cut funding for life saving medication (putting untold lives at risk) and fire inspectors general without authorization from the legislative branch. What makes you believe the executive branch will suddenly defer spending authority to the legislative branch?
  - ok_dad 2y ago
    No kidding, this guy is so over the place! He says the executive has no say over the budget, but also later he says it’s okay for the executive to “audit” the approved and passed budget without legislative approval and cut spending. That’s called impoundment, it’s been illegal since the 1800s.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      The House holds the power of the purse, but the President is the sole holder of Executive powers. That is to say, Congress legislates the budget but the actual execution of that budget is up to the President. If Congress feels the President isn't executing the budget as legislated, Congress can impeach the President. As for the judiciary, SCOTUS already ruled that the President enjoys absolute immunity in the course of executing his Constitutional duties. So far the House "applauds"[1] DOGE, so all is well. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCH5zUKKpdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCH5zUKKpdE
      - ok_dad 2y ago
        Ah, so you’re just in favor of your guy getting to be the monarch. I see. No morals, you are just one of those people that bends or breaks the law when you think it’s beneficial to your side. You people disgust me.
    - hooverd 2y ago
      Go ask Sartre.
      - ok_dad 2y ago
js2 2y ago
The NSF's budget is already below where it was supposed to be after passing the CHIPS act. https://www.science.org/content/article/analysis-how-nsf-s-budget-got-hammered https://www.science.org/content/article/analysis-how-nsf-s-b...
robwwilliams 2y ago
Science research of the types funded by NSF are the best forms of US soft power, and also good will, if that is still an allowed concept. If this is like yesterday’s coverage on HN of NIH and NSF budgets we can expect a lively and unusually engage political discussion here. I was hoping for a little sanity as during Trump 1. No such luck. Time to get much more engaged. Damn it, I was having so much fun figuring out the genetics of lifespan.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  > Time to get much more engaged.* Yes. And as a non-American following this from a distance, I don't understand what's taking the Democrats so long to start doing real opposition.
  - chneu 2y ago
    Established democrats are petrified of upsetting anyone. They have no real plans. Democrats are horrible at public relations and messaging, so they routinely get roasted by Republicans, despite being right most of the time.
  - dc396 2y ago
    Republicans control all three branches of government. Democrats are in the minority in the Legislative branch and, as such, have no real power. Add to that the capture of the Supreme Court by the Republicans, even legal efforts are unlikely to succeed. This is what a plurality of US voters voted for so one way you can look at it would be "you make your bed, you lie in it." Too bad for folks who relied on the US government...
    - robwwilliams 2y ago
      The splintered Republicans made it obvious over the last two years that they did not actually have control of the lower house. What they did get done was often done with help from Democrats. Perhaps they will be more unified; perhaps not.
  - thrill 2y ago
jazzyjackson 2y ago
I was pretty perturbed to discover an NSF grant I was involved with spent about 10% of the budget on-the-ground paying equipment and labor, while the other 90% went towards the university department that arranged for the grant. Not that the department head didn’t put in many hours over years of effort to establish that grant (among others), but it just seemed like comingling funds to me as an outsider, like, the money didn’t go to what the grant said it was for except in a tertiary way of “the phd students have to come from somewhere” but through a series of fumbles no research really came out of the project, but at least a middle school got a makerspace out of it. I guess what I’m saying is, there’s a lot of people who have experienced what feels like government waste and voted for a party that promises to dismantle the bureaucracy, so I’m not surprised they’re making these moves. Will the world be worse off for it, probably. Will the current crop of billionaires make up for it by funding public institutions like the Carnegies and Rockefellers? Doubt it. Maybe Europe and Asia will pick up the slack (and brain drain the USA as a result)
- jltsiren 2y ago
  That sounds like a misunderstanding. Federal grants usually have excessively strict restrictions on what you can do with the money. To the extent that labs can't pay many reasonable expenses if they don't have other sources of funding. Unless the project is particularly material-heavy, direct costs should be mostly labor costs, such as PhD student stipends and tuition, postdoc salaries, and summer salary for the PI.
  - thehoff 2y ago
    I agree that this may be a misunderstanding. Federal grant proposals require budgets that outline how you intend to spend those dollars along with text describing those line items. Some of this can be extremely detailed. These agencies have a lot of restrictions so yes, other sources are required in many cases. Then as you spend those funds many of these grants will require monthly or quarterly (or even more frequent) text and budget updates.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
nneonneo 2y ago
NSF grants are already hard enough to get as it is. A reduction of the budget to this extent would just make it a total waste of time to apply for NSF grants. It would have the effect of pushing academics further towards industry funding - which might be the entire point. Industry funding is incredibly selective, and many industry funders are basically looking to turn university researchers into extensions of their R&D divisions. This will be disastrous for the concept of academic freedom - and the ability for people to explore interesting problems that might not have immediate commercial impact.
- nxobject 2y ago
  Conversely, you could equally argue that NSF spending on training graduate students, and on technology transfer, subsidies industry. I worry that this will lead to a vicious cycle of fewer grad students in the US, leading to less industry in the US, leading to fewer grad students in the US, etc...
  - boxfire 2y ago
    My story: it's a joke to be a grad student. Salary in 2012: $10,800 per year without housing.
xnx 2y ago
I thought the (I don't know the word) "pro business" voter liked funding public research? "Socialize risk. Privatize profit." and all that.
readthenotes1 2y ago
This is why: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/10/new-cruz-investigation-reveals-how-biden-harris-diverted-billions-from-scientific-research-to-dei-activists https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/10/new-cruz-investigati... (Not sure why I got downvoted. I am neither defending nor accusing, just making an attempt to explain)
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  This is such bullshit. Obviously 2/3 of NSF funding is not going to "DEI". These are a handful of people who have bad opinions and got relatively small grants that are a tiny fraction of NSF funding. One is $100k. Since when do we tear down all of American science because we don't like what a handful of professors have to say? This is such Nazi scapegoating shit.
- mcphage 2y ago
  The thing is, that’s not an explanation, or even an attempt at one. That’s just another example of what needs explanation.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    It explains the viewpoint of the people making the decision

51 points by pseudolus 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

"Could" The National Science Foundation has received an annual budget of approximately $9 billion, the vast majority of which is spent on research and research-related activities. We shall see.

woodruffw 2y ago
Please don't selectively quote in a misleading way. The full quote is: > In recent years, the National Science Foundation has received an annual budget of approximately $9 billion [...] In other words, that's the budget prior to the cuts. The immediately following sentence points out that the cut may be as deep as 66%: > The cuts could be as deep as 66 percent, with one person indicating the top-line budget number for the National Science Foundation could start at $3 billion.

Dalewyn 2y ago

Note that the President's budget request is literally that: A request. The power of the purse, insofar as legislating it, rests solely with the House of Representatives. They can listen to the request or completely ignore it or write up something in-between. The President's request has no weight, though it could be a useful indicator of the future.

decimalenough 2y ago
In legal theory, perhaps, but given that House is controlled by Republicans, how many of them dare go on record opposing the will of their master?
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  The Republican Party's loyalty/obedience to Trump so far is unprecedented even in general terms, so it's reasonable to expect a lot of his requests will be reflected in the final budget.
basementcat 2y ago
We have seen the executive branch cut funding for life saving medication (putting untold lives at risk) and fire inspectors general without authorization from the legislative branch. What makes you believe the executive branch will suddenly defer spending authority to the legislative branch?
- ok_dad 2y ago
  No kidding, this guy is so over the place! He says the executive has no say over the budget, but also later he says it’s okay for the executive to “audit” the approved and passed budget without legislative approval and cut spending. That’s called impoundment, it’s been illegal since the 1800s.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    The House holds the power of the purse, but the President is the sole holder of Executive powers. That is to say, Congress legislates the budget but the actual execution of that budget is up to the President. If Congress feels the President isn't executing the budget as legislated, Congress can impeach the President. As for the judiciary, SCOTUS already ruled that the President enjoys absolute immunity in the course of executing his Constitutional duties. So far the House "applauds"[1] DOGE, so all is well. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCH5zUKKpdE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCH5zUKKpdE
    - ok_dad 2y ago
      Ah, so you’re just in favor of your guy getting to be the monarch. I see. No morals, you are just one of those people that bends or breaks the law when you think it’s beneficial to your side. You people disgust me.
  - hooverd 2y ago
    Go ask Sartre.
    - ok_dad 2y ago

js2 2y ago

The NSF's budget is already below where it was supposed to be after passing the CHIPS act. https://www.science.org/content/article/analysis-how-nsf-s-budget-got-hammered https://www.science.org/content/article/analysis-how-nsf-s-b...

robwwilliams 2y ago

Science research of the types funded by NSF are the best forms of US soft power, and also good will, if that is still an allowed concept. If this is like yesterday’s coverage on HN of NIH and NSF budgets we can expect a lively and unusually engage political discussion here. I was hoping for a little sanity as during Trump 1. No such luck. Time to get much more engaged. Damn it, I was having so much fun figuring out the genetics of lifespan.

gtirloni 2y ago
> Time to get much more engaged.* Yes. And as a non-American following this from a distance, I don't understand what's taking the Democrats so long to start doing real opposition.
- chneu 2y ago
  Established democrats are petrified of upsetting anyone. They have no real plans. Democrats are horrible at public relations and messaging, so they routinely get roasted by Republicans, despite being right most of the time.
- dc396 2y ago
  Republicans control all three branches of government. Democrats are in the minority in the Legislative branch and, as such, have no real power. Add to that the capture of the Supreme Court by the Republicans, even legal efforts are unlikely to succeed. This is what a plurality of US voters voted for so one way you can look at it would be "you make your bed, you lie in it." Too bad for folks who relied on the US government...
  - robwwilliams 2y ago
    The splintered Republicans made it obvious over the last two years that they did not actually have control of the lower house. What they did get done was often done with help from Democrats. Perhaps they will be more unified; perhaps not.
- thrill 2y ago

jazzyjackson 2y ago

I was pretty perturbed to discover an NSF grant I was involved with spent about 10% of the budget on-the-ground paying equipment and labor, while the other 90% went towards the university department that arranged for the grant. Not that the department head didn’t put in many hours over years of effort to establish that grant (among others), but it just seemed like comingling funds to me as an outsider, like, the money didn’t go to what the grant said it was for except in a tertiary way of “the phd students have to come from somewhere” but through a series of fumbles no research really came out of the project, but at least a middle school got a makerspace out of it. I guess what I’m saying is, there’s a lot of people who have experienced what feels like government waste and voted for a party that promises to dismantle the bureaucracy, so I’m not surprised they’re making these moves. Will the world be worse off for it, probably. Will the current crop of billionaires make up for it by funding public institutions like the Carnegies and Rockefellers? Doubt it. Maybe Europe and Asia will pick up the slack (and brain drain the USA as a result)

jltsiren 2y ago
That sounds like a misunderstanding. Federal grants usually have excessively strict restrictions on what you can do with the money. To the extent that labs can't pay many reasonable expenses if they don't have other sources of funding. Unless the project is particularly material-heavy, direct costs should be mostly labor costs, such as PhD student stipends and tuition, postdoc salaries, and summer salary for the PI.
- thehoff 2y ago
  I agree that this may be a misunderstanding. Federal grant proposals require budgets that outline how you intend to spend those dollars along with text describing those line items. Some of this can be extremely detailed. These agencies have a lot of restrictions so yes, other sources are required in many cases. Then as you spend those funds many of these grants will require monthly or quarterly (or even more frequent) text and budget updates.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago

nneonneo 2y ago

NSF grants are already hard enough to get as it is. A reduction of the budget to this extent would just make it a total waste of time to apply for NSF grants. It would have the effect of pushing academics further towards industry funding - which might be the entire point. Industry funding is incredibly selective, and many industry funders are basically looking to turn university researchers into extensions of their R&D divisions. This will be disastrous for the concept of academic freedom - and the ability for people to explore interesting problems that might not have immediate commercial impact.

nxobject 2y ago
Conversely, you could equally argue that NSF spending on training graduate students, and on technology transfer, subsidies industry. I worry that this will lead to a vicious cycle of fewer grad students in the US, leading to less industry in the US, leading to fewer grad students in the US, etc...
- boxfire 2y ago
  My story: it's a joke to be a grad student. Salary in 2012: $10,800 per year without housing.

xnx 2y ago

I thought the (I don't know the word) "pro business" voter liked funding public research? "Socialize risk. Privatize profit." and all that.

readthenotes1 2y ago

This is why: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/10/new-cruz-investigation-reveals-how-biden-harris-diverted-billions-from-scientific-research-to-dei-activists https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/10/new-cruz-investigati... (Not sure why I got downvoted. I am neither defending nor accusing, just making an attempt to explain)

apical_dendrite 2y ago
This is such bullshit. Obviously 2/3 of NSF funding is not going to "DEI". These are a handful of people who have bad opinions and got relatively small grants that are a tiny fraction of NSF funding. One is $100k. Since when do we tear down all of American science because we don't like what a handful of professors have to say? This is such Nazi scapegoating shit.
mcphage 2y ago
The thing is, that’s not an explanation, or even an attempt at one. That’s just another example of what needs explanation.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  It explains the viewpoint of the people making the decision