6 ms·

Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layo

Every time I read about one of the national labs doing this research, I wonder how much longer we will head about these. I feel fairly positive that DOGE's layoffs and budget cuts mean this output will fade away in time.

gosub100 1y ago
[flagged]
- baxtr 1y ago
  Can you share any data on your "What ifs"?
  - gosub100 1y ago
    [flagged]
- gameman144 1y ago
  > Your answer to this question determines whether you believe in ideology or data. I mean, you're technically right, but that doesn't invalidate anything the parent commenter said. I could equally ask "What if it turned out that turpentine was actually _healthier_ than water?". Like, yeah, if that assertion turned out to be the case and you rejected the new data, you'd be following dogma rather than data. That doesn't mean that the assertion is likely to actually be true though.
- lawlessone 1y ago
  >What if DOGE savings create more money for important science? >Your answer to this question determines whether you believe in ideology or data. I've upvoted your comment to give you time to show us your data.
  - MeetingsBrowser 1y ago
    A recent senate report says the government spent >$21 billion in the last 6 months on salaries for people who cannot work because of DOGE. There’s one data point against the original comments assumption or intention
  - gosub100 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - baxtr 1y ago
    Interesting reason to upvote. Would have never thought of it but kinda makes sense!
- nemomarx 1y ago
  has doge actually saved any money overall? it seems like spending is still up, so
- dekhn 1y ago
  If there was a coherent plan in DOGE to make more money available to do important science, maybe that could work. However, nothing DOGE has done has shown any sort of logic in terms of outcome maximization. The collection of activities (partly DOGE, partly Trump org) applied to scientists has been super-impactful (in an entirely negative way) for science we already know is important The pool of skilled scientists to be hired shrinks when you cut funding in arbitrary ways.
- e2le 1y ago
  Basic research is important science and is in societies best interest to support it. A quote from Carl Sagan’s, Demon Haunted World. > We are rarely smart enough to set about on purpose making the discoveries that will drive our economy and safeguard our lives. Often, we lack the fundamental research. Instead, we pursue a broad range of investigations of Nature, and applications we never dreamed of emerge. Not always, of course. But often enough. https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709 https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709
  - tart-lemonade 1y ago
    He's absolutely right. Long-shot research with little to no immediate applicability has been the basis for innumerable breakthroughs over the years. If DOGE existed back in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, we wouldn't have mRNA vaccines[0], Google[1] (or the modern internet for that matter[2]), and many modern cancer treatments[3], to name but a few examples of research that would have been easy to brand as wasteful and not "important science". [0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975718/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975718/ [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016975529800110X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016975529... [2]: https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/internet https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/internet [3]: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/improving-health/cancer https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/improving-...
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Your framing of the question suggests you believe in ideology, because you're posing a purity based based on hypotheticals alone. Where is the actual data for DOGE, in any department doing science?
  - gosub100 1y ago
    That's a great way to always be right: just claim the data that disputes your position is non-existent.
    - wewtyflakes 1y ago
      You have not made an argument based on data, you made an argument based on having wishful thinking about Doge and what the government will do with "the savings".
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Uh, this is easy to refute if the data exists.
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      Don't lie, I didn't make any such claim. I just asked you to provide teh data that you say informs your position.
  - mhh__ 1y ago
    Show me someone without ideology and I'll sell you a clock in London
- jjk166 1y ago
  What if we found leprechauns and they gave us their pots of gold, think of all the scientists we could hire then! Certainly we should be prioritizing the leprechaun search.
- gopher_space 1y ago
  There's no scenario where messing with a working system people rely on and then getting rid of everyone who understood it will produce a savings. What DOGE has done would simply destroy a corporation, and we know this because we've helped corporations perform this kind of system analysis and understand the cost of change. We're at a point right now where we can't even calculate the damage Musk has done, where the discovery process on that issue alone will be a multi-million years long effort. We're looking at large-scale remediation projects on every system Trump gave him access to because the cost of not doing that is functionally unknowable. E.g. every table DOGE had the ability to change is now a legal liability per row.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > What if DOGE savings These savings are not material. And if they were they wouldn’t matter—the Congress blew out our deficit by trillions irrespective of anything DOGE did.
- Hikikomori 1y ago
  What if doge does something it's not doing? Yeah that might make it good, but they're not.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Considering the platform is budget cuts (yet an increased deficit) and science denial, I'm going to rate this hypothetical "highly unlikely".
- ted_dunning 1y ago
  There are many counter-factual hypotheticals like this in common speech. "if pigs could fly" "when hell freezes over" "when Trump and the GOP care about truth" They all mean the same thing.
  - gosub100 1y ago
    exactly, you worship an ideology. That's my point. The claim that saving government funds could actually help fund research (or have other positive effects) is a foregone conclusion. So you close your mind to the possibility because it would force you to agree with Trump on something, but your ideology (not unlike a militant islamic jihadist) has already prescribed you to declare "that side" as the enemy. That's why I said in another comment on this thread, that you (liberals) will deny any evidence that doesn't support your claim. And seeing how badly I was downvoted on my parent comment, it's clear they do NOT want to be forced to admit this about their tribe. It's a religion. you may not have a church or a leadership structure, but you believe what your tribe says, on faith. and most of you are atheists, so it jibs with the theory that you replaced the love-of-god (from your previous generations, where statistically your ancestors were religious) with love-of-government. That theory fits tighter than a glove to explain the turn-your-brain-off-and-believe state of modern leftism. Especially in a forum such as this, where the content is otherwise much more intellectual.
LAsteNERD 1y ago
I worry about this, but these capabilities are hard to replace. This kind of research hasn’t historically been something you can outsource to private companies. Or—at least—it hasn’t been until now. Even if this administration wants to open that door, the infrastructure investment required for the accelerators alone is staggering: easily in the multiple billions.
- sfilmeyer 1y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but you seem like you're talking about privatizing this research whereas the other commenter seems to be talking about public cuts leading to a reduction of research. Just because something gets cut doesn't mean it gets outsourced elsewhere.
  - LAsteNERD 1y ago
    I guess my point is that it's hard to simply cut research that's essential for certifying that the stockpile is safe and works. I'll avoid making any predictions, because who the hell knows what's going to happen, but I think dynamic imaging work may prove a tough target for DOGE.
    - toast0 1y ago
      Why not just rubber stamp the certification and save all that money?
    - ted_dunning 1y ago
      Yes. It is hard to this honestly and correctly. That would mean that normal people wouldn't make these cuts. It also has very little predictive power for the loon with the checkbook right now. He might just as likely notice that people care a lot about that issue and hold it for ransom.
    - jejdjdndn 1y ago
      I think the overall aim of DOGE is simply to move research into privately controlled entities, especially those that can’t be cut. Its simply a continuation of transferring the national asset base (tax/usd) from democratic control, into private control. It doesn’t need to be profit making in the normal sense (see SpaceX) it just needs to be the only game in town when the US Gov spends on national security
mythrwy 1y ago
I don't think defense budget is facing cuts. They are getting even more money.
- dralley 1y ago
  The national labs are absolutely getting budget cuts.
  - LAsteNERD 1y ago
    For sure. But depending on what Congress does, think defense budgets could grow, which would mean more money for defense-positioned Labs like Los Alamos.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      Nuclear research is done under the Department of Energy, not DoD. Los Alamos is a DoE lab, and the DoE received major cuts in the recent budget bill, though that shifts energy efficiency research into weapons research and net increases lab funding.
      - bobmarleybiceps 1y ago
        I have heard that their internal review processes for papers have started telling people to not say stuff like "XYZ may be useful for climate research" or "this is an alternative energy source that's environmentally friendly." Like they are literally discouraged from talking about climate stuff at all lol.
        AlotOfReading 1y ago
        Wouldn't surprise me. Getting rid of the other research programs won't be great for the labs though. The weapons research has a bunch of weird incentives because of the geopolitical context it exists in. The goal usually isn't to operationalize research, it's to have credible evidence of a functioning nuclear program, maintain the arsenal, and act as a jobs program for nuclear physics. The other programs act as a way to operationalize things in socially acceptable ways. If you get rid of them, I suspect the labs aren't going to be better-off for it even with more funding.
kjkjadksj 1y ago
It’s for bombs, it’s untouchable.
- elygre 1y ago
  It might end up financing a gold-plated airplane for a library.
  - defrost 1y ago
    For context for casual readers: Which may explain why no one wants to discuss a mysterious, $934 million transfer of funds from one of the Pentagon’s most over-budget, out-of-control projects — the modernization of America’s aging, ground-based nuclear missiles. What Will It Cost to Renovate the ‘Free’ Air Force One? Don’t Ask. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/us/politics/air-force-one-trump-cost.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/us/politics/air-force-one...
mhh__ 1y ago
Labs like this also have huge black budget spending that we don't get to see. I'm guessing we'll see more hidden spending in future as the nukes and the engineers that made them get older. its worth asking if they even work (in some countries arsenals at least)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

gosub100 1y ago

[flagged]

baxtr 1y ago
Can you share any data on your "What ifs"?
- gosub100 1y ago
  [flagged]
gameman144 1y ago
> Your answer to this question determines whether you believe in ideology or data. I mean, you're technically right, but that doesn't invalidate anything the parent commenter said. I could equally ask "What if it turned out that turpentine was actually _healthier_ than water?". Like, yeah, if that assertion turned out to be the case and you rejected the new data, you'd be following dogma rather than data. That doesn't mean that the assertion is likely to actually be true though.
lawlessone 1y ago
>What if DOGE savings create more money for important science? >Your answer to this question determines whether you believe in ideology or data. I've upvoted your comment to give you time to show us your data.
- MeetingsBrowser 1y ago
  A recent senate report says the government spent >$21 billion in the last 6 months on salaries for people who cannot work because of DOGE. There’s one data point against the original comments assumption or intention
- gosub100 1y ago
  [flagged]
- baxtr 1y ago
  Interesting reason to upvote. Would have never thought of it but kinda makes sense!
nemomarx 1y ago
has doge actually saved any money overall? it seems like spending is still up, so
dekhn 1y ago
If there was a coherent plan in DOGE to make more money available to do important science, maybe that could work. However, nothing DOGE has done has shown any sort of logic in terms of outcome maximization. The collection of activities (partly DOGE, partly Trump org) applied to scientists has been super-impactful (in an entirely negative way) for science we already know is important The pool of skilled scientists to be hired shrinks when you cut funding in arbitrary ways.
e2le 1y ago
Basic research is important science and is in societies best interest to support it. A quote from Carl Sagan’s, Demon Haunted World. > We are rarely smart enough to set about on purpose making the discoveries that will drive our economy and safeguard our lives. Often, we lack the fundamental research. Instead, we pursue a broad range of investigations of Nature, and applications we never dreamed of emerge. Not always, of course. But often enough. https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709 https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709
- tart-lemonade 1y ago
  He's absolutely right. Long-shot research with little to no immediate applicability has been the basis for innumerable breakthroughs over the years. If DOGE existed back in the 70s, 80s, or 90s, we wouldn't have mRNA vaccines[0], Google[1] (or the modern internet for that matter[2]), and many modern cancer treatments[3], to name but a few examples of research that would have been easy to brand as wasteful and not "important science". [0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975718/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9975718/ [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016975529800110X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016975529... [2]: https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/internet https://www.nsf.gov/impacts/internet [3]: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/improving-health/cancer https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/impact-nih-research/improving-...
anigbrowl 1y ago
Your framing of the question suggests you believe in ideology, because you're posing a purity based based on hypotheticals alone. Where is the actual data for DOGE, in any department doing science?
- gosub100 1y ago
  That's a great way to always be right: just claim the data that disputes your position is non-existent.
  - wewtyflakes 1y ago
    You have not made an argument based on data, you made an argument based on having wishful thinking about Doge and what the government will do with "the savings".
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Uh, this is easy to refute if the data exists.
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    Don't lie, I didn't make any such claim. I just asked you to provide teh data that you say informs your position.
- mhh__ 1y ago
  Show me someone without ideology and I'll sell you a clock in London
jjk166 1y ago
What if we found leprechauns and they gave us their pots of gold, think of all the scientists we could hire then! Certainly we should be prioritizing the leprechaun search.
gopher_space 1y ago
There's no scenario where messing with a working system people rely on and then getting rid of everyone who understood it will produce a savings. What DOGE has done would simply destroy a corporation, and we know this because we've helped corporations perform this kind of system analysis and understand the cost of change. We're at a point right now where we can't even calculate the damage Musk has done, where the discovery process on that issue alone will be a multi-million years long effort. We're looking at large-scale remediation projects on every system Trump gave him access to because the cost of not doing that is functionally unknowable. E.g. every table DOGE had the ability to change is now a legal liability per row.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> What if DOGE savings These savings are not material. And if they were they wouldn’t matter—the Congress blew out our deficit by trillions irrespective of anything DOGE did.
Hikikomori 1y ago
What if doge does something it's not doing? Yeah that might make it good, but they're not.
cosmicgadget 1y ago
Considering the platform is budget cuts (yet an increased deficit) and science denial, I'm going to rate this hypothetical "highly unlikely".
ted_dunning 1y ago
There are many counter-factual hypotheticals like this in common speech. "if pigs could fly" "when hell freezes over" "when Trump and the GOP care about truth" They all mean the same thing.
- gosub100 1y ago
  exactly, you worship an ideology. That's my point. The claim that saving government funds could actually help fund research (or have other positive effects) is a foregone conclusion. So you close your mind to the possibility because it would force you to agree with Trump on something, but your ideology (not unlike a militant islamic jihadist) has already prescribed you to declare "that side" as the enemy. That's why I said in another comment on this thread, that you (liberals) will deny any evidence that doesn't support your claim. And seeing how badly I was downvoted on my parent comment, it's clear they do NOT want to be forced to admit this about their tribe. It's a religion. you may not have a church or a leadership structure, but you believe what your tribe says, on faith. and most of you are atheists, so it jibs with the theory that you replaced the love-of-god (from your previous generations, where statistically your ancestors were religious) with love-of-government. That theory fits tighter than a glove to explain the turn-your-brain-off-and-believe state of modern leftism. Especially in a forum such as this, where the content is otherwise much more intellectual.

LAsteNERD 1y ago

I worry about this, but these capabilities are hard to replace. This kind of research hasn’t historically been something you can outsource to private companies. Or—at least—it hasn’t been until now. Even if this administration wants to open that door, the infrastructure investment required for the accelerators alone is staggering: easily in the multiple billions.

sfilmeyer 1y ago
Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but you seem like you're talking about privatizing this research whereas the other commenter seems to be talking about public cuts leading to a reduction of research. Just because something gets cut doesn't mean it gets outsourced elsewhere.
- LAsteNERD 1y ago
  I guess my point is that it's hard to simply cut research that's essential for certifying that the stockpile is safe and works. I'll avoid making any predictions, because who the hell knows what's going to happen, but I think dynamic imaging work may prove a tough target for DOGE.
  - toast0 1y ago
    Why not just rubber stamp the certification and save all that money?
  - ted_dunning 1y ago
    Yes. It is hard to this honestly and correctly. That would mean that normal people wouldn't make these cuts. It also has very little predictive power for the loon with the checkbook right now. He might just as likely notice that people care a lot about that issue and hold it for ransom.
  - jejdjdndn 1y ago
    I think the overall aim of DOGE is simply to move research into privately controlled entities, especially those that can’t be cut. Its simply a continuation of transferring the national asset base (tax/usd) from democratic control, into private control. It doesn’t need to be profit making in the normal sense (see SpaceX) it just needs to be the only game in town when the US Gov spends on national security

mythrwy 1y ago

I don't think defense budget is facing cuts. They are getting even more money.

dralley 1y ago
The national labs are absolutely getting budget cuts.
- LAsteNERD 1y ago
  For sure. But depending on what Congress does, think defense budgets could grow, which would mean more money for defense-positioned Labs like Los Alamos.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    Nuclear research is done under the Department of Energy, not DoD. Los Alamos is a DoE lab, and the DoE received major cuts in the recent budget bill, though that shifts energy efficiency research into weapons research and net increases lab funding.
    - bobmarleybiceps 1y ago
      I have heard that their internal review processes for papers have started telling people to not say stuff like "XYZ may be useful for climate research" or "this is an alternative energy source that's environmentally friendly." Like they are literally discouraged from talking about climate stuff at all lol.
      - AlotOfReading 1y ago
        Wouldn't surprise me. Getting rid of the other research programs won't be great for the labs though. The weapons research has a bunch of weird incentives because of the geopolitical context it exists in. The goal usually isn't to operationalize research, it's to have credible evidence of a functioning nuclear program, maintain the arsenal, and act as a jobs program for nuclear physics. The other programs act as a way to operationalize things in socially acceptable ways. If you get rid of them, I suspect the labs aren't going to be better-off for it even with more funding.

kjkjadksj 1y ago

It’s for bombs, it’s untouchable.

elygre 1y ago
It might end up financing a gold-plated airplane for a library.
- defrost 1y ago
  For context for casual readers: Which may explain why no one wants to discuss a mysterious, $934 million transfer of funds from one of the Pentagon’s most over-budget, out-of-control projects — the modernization of America’s aging, ground-based nuclear missiles. What Will It Cost to Renovate the ‘Free’ Air Force One? Don’t Ask. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/us/politics/air-force-one-trump-cost.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/us/politics/air-force-one...

mhh__ 1y ago

Labs like this also have huge black budget spending that we don't get to see. I'm guessing we'll see more hidden spending in future as the nukes and the engineers that made them get older. its worth asking if they even work (in some countries arsenals at least)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]