4 ms·

Not that different than the author of this article. Is she a neutral scientist acting in the best interest of science? No, she is a Biden political appointee:

Not that different than the author of this article. Is she a neutral scientist acting in the best interest of science? No, she is a Biden political appointee: Nelson was deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and principal deputy director for science and society of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Is she even a highly qualified? She has a Ph.D., but in what? Nelson earned a Bachelor of Science degree in anthropology She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
Why is being a Biden appointee grounds to assume she isn't acting in the best interests of Science?
- apercu 1y ago
  [flagged]
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  Never said she wasn't acting in the best interest, just that she is a political appointee with no science education, and very little in her resume to suggest she is qualified.
allturtles 1y ago
> she is a Biden political appointee The obvious difference is stated in the post you are replying to: "Congress hasn't approved him." > She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003. The NSF funds humanities/social science grants, so it needs experts in those areas. Note that she is deputy director for science and society. This funds work associated with history, sociology, etc.: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sts-science-technology-society/5324/nsf05-588/solicitation https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sts-science-techno....
libraryatnight 1y ago
[flagged]
- dang 1y ago
  Yikes, we ban accounts that post like this for what ought to be obvious reasons. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been doing this repeatedly (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43974234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43974234), and the problem goes back quite a while: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39122658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39122658. Moreover, we've warned you several times before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366673 (Sept 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35920165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35920165 (May 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381956 (Sept 2020) I really don't want to ban someone who's been here for 13 years but this is not acceptable. If you'd please review the guidelines and fix it, we'd be grateful.
  - libraryatnight 1y ago
    Thanks for not banning me - I know it's wrong but shits dark right now and people are getting hurt and sometimes when it feels like people are looking past that deliberately I get lost. You may have noted some gaps in posting, usually me stepping away when I feel like I'm too far gone down the internet ego machine. I'll do better, and if I don't - I know I'm wrong and deserve what I get. You're an great mod, appreciate you.
kacesensitive 1y ago
Oh no, not a Ph.D. from NYU and a science policy leadership role under a president—how scandalous! Imagine thinking someone who specializes in the intersection of science, society, and governance might be... qualified to advise on science and society. Her research literally focuses on how science and technology shape—and are shaped by—social forces. But sure, let’s pretend like policy isn't supposed to involve people who understand, you know, people.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  Ph.D. in American studies - that you cut that out is... notable. There are no scientific qualifications in her education.
  - kacesensitive 1y ago
    Oh please—spare us the performative gatekeeping. “No scientific qualifications”? She led the Office of Science and Technology Policy and served on the National Science Board. Her expertise is in how science operates within society, which is exactly what her job required. You think only lab coats get to weigh in on national science policy? That’s not how interdisciplinary governance works—unless you’re allergic to the idea of social context in science, which, frankly, explains a lot.
hackyhacky 1y ago
Being appointed by a former president makes her unqualified to comment on the subject how? If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Dismissing her arguments because of who is making them is ad hominem fallacy. You're using a person's associations as an excuse to avoid engaging with their ideas.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  That's the exact argument that I was responding to! The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Surely you looked into the arguments, and judge them without bias, and didn't jump to a conclusion based on his associations. They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias. No: one was appointed legally, the other was illegally installed in an unconstitutional power grab. That's all that matters.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Because so far every appointee by Trump has been, objectively, less qualified than the people they replace? There's no bias in that, it's just looking at credentials. We have people in public health who have never worked in healthcare. We have people leading the DOD where their only battle thus far has been alcoholism. We have a surgeon general who can't even practice medicine. I mean... what pattern are we noticing here? Are we just supposed to play stupid forever, in pursuit of some "fairness"? We're not blind, we're not deaf, we can understand what's going on.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Technically it's a genetic fallacy /nitpick

ToucanLoucan 1y ago

Why is being a Biden appointee grounds to assume she isn't acting in the best interests of Science?

apercu 1y ago
[flagged]
WillPostForFood 1y ago
Never said she wasn't acting in the best interest, just that she is a political appointee with no science education, and very little in her resume to suggest she is qualified.

allturtles 1y ago

> she is a Biden political appointee The obvious difference is stated in the post you are replying to: "Congress hasn't approved him." > She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003. The NSF funds humanities/social science grants, so it needs experts in those areas. Note that she is deputy director for science and society. This funds work associated with history, sociology, etc.: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sts-science-technology-society/5324/nsf05-588/solicitation https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sts-science-techno....

libraryatnight 1y ago

[flagged]

dang 1y ago
Yikes, we ban accounts that post like this for what ought to be obvious reasons. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been doing this repeatedly (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43974234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43974234), and the problem goes back quite a while: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39122658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39122658. Moreover, we've warned you several times before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37366673 (Sept 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35920165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35920165 (May 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24381956 (Sept 2020) I really don't want to ban someone who's been here for 13 years but this is not acceptable. If you'd please review the guidelines and fix it, we'd be grateful.
- libraryatnight 1y ago
  Thanks for not banning me - I know it's wrong but shits dark right now and people are getting hurt and sometimes when it feels like people are looking past that deliberately I get lost. You may have noted some gaps in posting, usually me stepping away when I feel like I'm too far gone down the internet ego machine. I'll do better, and if I don't - I know I'm wrong and deserve what I get. You're an great mod, appreciate you.

kacesensitive 1y ago

Oh no, not a Ph.D. from NYU and a science policy leadership role under a president—how scandalous! Imagine thinking someone who specializes in the intersection of science, society, and governance might be... qualified to advise on science and society. Her research literally focuses on how science and technology shape—and are shaped by—social forces. But sure, let’s pretend like policy isn't supposed to involve people who understand, you know, people.

WillPostForFood 1y ago
Ph.D. in American studies - that you cut that out is... notable. There are no scientific qualifications in her education.
- kacesensitive 1y ago
  Oh please—spare us the performative gatekeeping. “No scientific qualifications”? She led the Office of Science and Technology Policy and served on the National Science Board. Her expertise is in how science operates within society, which is exactly what her job required. You think only lab coats get to weigh in on national science policy? That’s not how interdisciplinary governance works—unless you’re allergic to the idea of social context in science, which, frankly, explains a lot.

hackyhacky 1y ago

Being appointed by a former president makes her unqualified to comment on the subject how? If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Dismissing her arguments because of who is making them is ad hominem fallacy. You're using a person's associations as an excuse to avoid engaging with their ideas.

WillPostForFood 1y ago
That's the exact argument that I was responding to! The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Surely you looked into the arguments, and judge them without bias, and didn't jump to a conclusion based on his associations. They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias. No: one was appointed legally, the other was illegally installed in an unconstitutional power grab. That's all that matters.
- const_cast 1y ago
  > The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Because so far every appointee by Trump has been, objectively, less qualified than the people they replace? There's no bias in that, it's just looking at credentials. We have people in public health who have never worked in healthcare. We have people leading the DOD where their only battle thus far has been alcoholism. We have a surgeon general who can't even practice medicine. I mean... what pattern are we noticing here? Are we just supposed to play stupid forever, in pursuit of some "fairness"? We're not blind, we're not deaf, we can understand what's going on.
anigbrowl 1y ago
Technically it's a genetic fallacy /nitpick