4 ms·

I know I may get some flack for this. But IMO, you shouldn't make waves when you are a VISA guest in another country. It's just a bad idea all around. There'

I know I may get some flack for this. But IMO, you shouldn't make waves when you are a VISA guest in another country. It's just a bad idea all around. There's every reason to actively avoid getting politically involved. While I realize that US higher education is particularly motivated towards activism, protests and the like. Historically accepting even foreign nationals in such activity. It's still just a bad idea for non-citizens in any country to do so. I do think a lot of grant funding will cycle back around. There's every reason for commercial sourcing to become a larger portion of university funding as well as university funding directly from endowments considering the profit motivations in both cases. I think it's far from dead, just changing.

tsol 1y ago
I don't think everyone that got their funding pulled made waves. Terrance Tao for example had funding pulled simply for being associated with the wrong school.
- tracker1 1y ago
  I'm not saying they did... I'm simply commenting on the chilling effects portion of the post I replied to. In that becoming politically involved in a foreign nation on a temporary visa is just a bad idea. It really shouldn't be a controversial opinion. There are a LOT of countries that have much harsher penalties for speaking out than having one's visa revoked. For that matter, I'm not endorsing one opinion or another on any given topic here, only pointing out that it's a bad idea.
  - wrs 1y ago
    That absolutely is a controversial opinion. The prohibition against government reprisal for speech acts is the first thing in the Bill of Rights! That’s one of the genuinely exceptional things about the U.S., or at least it was until we broke it.
    - tracker1 1y ago
      A lot of privileges/rights are limited to citizens in the US in different ways. Why would any government welcome a subversive, foreign influence? Should it be any surprise that the result is similar to what happens when a spy is caught?
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        The first amendment is NOT limited to citizens in the US. It just isn't. Why would it be? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion applies to everybody.
        tracker1 1y ago
        And what happens to spies caught in the US? Again, why would you expect something significantly different for a subversive foreign adversary in the nation on a Visa? "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        I think you misunderstand the line you quoted. That means consequences from other private citizens, not from the government.
        tracker1 1y ago
        And you didn't answer the question I asked more than once. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy? There are plenty of limitations to Visa holders. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/waivers.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        That link isn't very helpful, as it's a huge document. Which section limits the speech of people on visas? From what I can see that entire document is about whether someone can get a visa, not what they are allowed to say once they are in country. Further one section says that visa applicants can't be denied entry for their previous speech if that speech is legal for American citizens.
beowulfey 1y ago
1) Why would companies pay for basic research? They used to get that research for free. 2) Very few schools have endowments that are large enough to support current faculty research costs; even Harvard can only support all research off their endowment for about a year. 3) Endowments are now taxed, so they will have even less available for research.
- tracker1 1y ago
  1) because they're the ones who most benefit from it. Because they still need the research itself, even if someone else isn't paying for it. 2) Harvard has a $54 billion endowment and spends $6.4 billion a year, that doesn't include tuition and fees, that's just what they have in the bank. 3) Actually spending the money is tax deductible and better for the economy.
  - beowulfey 1y ago
    Endowment funds are not a checking account, they are not just cash on hand for universities to spend as they please. They could certainly liquidate, but then each year their disbursement would get lower. There is no situation where they could continue operating as they do now. See my other comment on the likelihood that any corporation would want to pay for basic science. When would any company choose to fund something that would not guarantee a return on investment? It goes against the nature of the goals of a corporation. I would love to know of for-profit examples of this. I'm sure there are a few, but I doubt there are many.
    - apical_dendrite 1y ago
      Also, most endowment funds are restricted by the donor. The whole point of making a donation to an endowment is to fund a specific thing in perpetuity. Legally, the university can't just take money that was given to them to fund one thing in perpetuity and use that money to fund a completely different thing as a one-time expense.
- MisterMower 1y ago
  1) Because ROI on that investment is still positive, even if it used to be “free”. 2) Endowments aren’t the only way to fund research, and not all research is equally valuable. Some is probably negative value, given the replication crisis. 3) Investment income from the endowment is taxed at a maximum of 8%. If that’s enough to break the US university research machine, I’m not sure it was ever working in the first place.
searine 1y ago
Corporations were funding scientific innovation indirectly through corporate taxes and they fought with every fiber of their being to cut those taxes because they didn't want to pay for it. If you think they will suddenly have a change of heart and start funding scientific discovery not just indirectly, but directly, then I have a bridge to sell you.
- tracker1 1y ago
  If they want to remain competitive and advance, they certainly will.
  - ksenzee 1y ago
    And we know companies certainly do what's best for their long-term growth and survival, rather than prioritizing short-term profits. We certainly don't need to worry about innovation grinding to a halt, and scientists leaving the field, while companies figure out the new normal.
  - apical_dendrite 1y ago
    Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Basically what you're saying is that a Pharma company is going to invest in research that may not pay off for decades, if ever. GLP-1 drugs are based on research that started in the early 80s. mRNA vaccines are based on research from the late 80s and 90s. Very few companies are interested in funding highly-speculative work where they won't see a return for 30 or 40 years - and probably will never see a return at all. It also creates a really serious problem - if companies are funding the basic science, then they are going to want to own what they're funding. But collaboration and shared knowledge is exactly what pushes science forward.
amanaplanacanal 1y ago
What the heck? In the US, free speech is guaranteed in the constitution. Of course people can make waves! The idea that people should just go along with things and not make their voices heard is completely unamerican.
- tracker1 1y ago
  It is expressly limited by the Visa application, process and requirements that are agreed to as part of obtaining a Visa to enter the US.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    You keep claiming that. I can't find it in the document you linked. I think you are mistaken.
    - tracker1 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44893825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44893825
cowmix 1y ago
The “activism” angle is a red herring — they’re screwing with all foreign students now, regardless of what they do. And honestly, activism is one of the things that made the US stand apart — or used to. The US government, while far from perfect, was once seen as a neutral partner in research — a place where scientists from everywhere could coordinate, mix, and build. It cost us relatively little compared to what we gained, and that leadership was admired both domestically and globally. It wasn’t perfect, but it was pretty damn good — and now it’s being killed.
- tracker1 1y ago
  As mentioned in other threads... Visa holders are prohibited from working against, subverting, or otherwise advocating for the overthrow of US Govt or against standing policies. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy?

tsol 1y ago

I don't think everyone that got their funding pulled made waves. Terrance Tao for example had funding pulled simply for being associated with the wrong school.

tracker1 1y ago
I'm not saying they did... I'm simply commenting on the chilling effects portion of the post I replied to. In that becoming politically involved in a foreign nation on a temporary visa is just a bad idea. It really shouldn't be a controversial opinion. There are a LOT of countries that have much harsher penalties for speaking out than having one's visa revoked. For that matter, I'm not endorsing one opinion or another on any given topic here, only pointing out that it's a bad idea.
- wrs 1y ago
  That absolutely is a controversial opinion. The prohibition against government reprisal for speech acts is the first thing in the Bill of Rights! That’s one of the genuinely exceptional things about the U.S., or at least it was until we broke it.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    A lot of privileges/rights are limited to citizens in the US in different ways. Why would any government welcome a subversive, foreign influence? Should it be any surprise that the result is similar to what happens when a spy is caught?
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      The first amendment is NOT limited to citizens in the US. It just isn't. Why would it be? Free speech, free press, and freedom of religion applies to everybody.
      - tracker1 1y ago
        And what happens to spies caught in the US? Again, why would you expect something significantly different for a subversive foreign adversary in the nation on a Visa? "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        I think you misunderstand the line you quoted. That means consequences from other private citizens, not from the government.
        tracker1 1y ago
        And you didn't answer the question I asked more than once. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy? There are plenty of limitations to Visa holders. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/waivers.html https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-inf...
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
        That link isn't very helpful, as it's a huge document. Which section limits the speech of people on visas? From what I can see that entire document is about whether someone can get a visa, not what they are allowed to say once they are in country. Further one section says that visa applicants can't be denied entry for their previous speech if that speech is legal for American citizens.

beowulfey 1y ago

1) Why would companies pay for basic research? They used to get that research for free. 2) Very few schools have endowments that are large enough to support current faculty research costs; even Harvard can only support all research off their endowment for about a year. 3) Endowments are now taxed, so they will have even less available for research.

tracker1 1y ago
1) because they're the ones who most benefit from it. Because they still need the research itself, even if someone else isn't paying for it. 2) Harvard has a $54 billion endowment and spends $6.4 billion a year, that doesn't include tuition and fees, that's just what they have in the bank. 3) Actually spending the money is tax deductible and better for the economy.
- beowulfey 1y ago
  Endowment funds are not a checking account, they are not just cash on hand for universities to spend as they please. They could certainly liquidate, but then each year their disbursement would get lower. There is no situation where they could continue operating as they do now. See my other comment on the likelihood that any corporation would want to pay for basic science. When would any company choose to fund something that would not guarantee a return on investment? It goes against the nature of the goals of a corporation. I would love to know of for-profit examples of this. I'm sure there are a few, but I doubt there are many.
  - apical_dendrite 1y ago
    Also, most endowment funds are restricted by the donor. The whole point of making a donation to an endowment is to fund a specific thing in perpetuity. Legally, the university can't just take money that was given to them to fund one thing in perpetuity and use that money to fund a completely different thing as a one-time expense.
MisterMower 1y ago
1) Because ROI on that investment is still positive, even if it used to be “free”. 2) Endowments aren’t the only way to fund research, and not all research is equally valuable. Some is probably negative value, given the replication crisis. 3) Investment income from the endowment is taxed at a maximum of 8%. If that’s enough to break the US university research machine, I’m not sure it was ever working in the first place.

searine 1y ago

Corporations were funding scientific innovation indirectly through corporate taxes and they fought with every fiber of their being to cut those taxes because they didn't want to pay for it. If you think they will suddenly have a change of heart and start funding scientific discovery not just indirectly, but directly, then I have a bridge to sell you.

tracker1 1y ago
If they want to remain competitive and advance, they certainly will.
- ksenzee 1y ago
  And we know companies certainly do what's best for their long-term growth and survival, rather than prioritizing short-term profits. We certainly don't need to worry about innovation grinding to a halt, and scientists leaving the field, while companies figure out the new normal.
- apical_dendrite 1y ago
  Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Basically what you're saying is that a Pharma company is going to invest in research that may not pay off for decades, if ever. GLP-1 drugs are based on research that started in the early 80s. mRNA vaccines are based on research from the late 80s and 90s. Very few companies are interested in funding highly-speculative work where they won't see a return for 30 or 40 years - and probably will never see a return at all. It also creates a really serious problem - if companies are funding the basic science, then they are going to want to own what they're funding. But collaboration and shared knowledge is exactly what pushes science forward.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago

What the heck? In the US, free speech is guaranteed in the constitution. Of course people can make waves! The idea that people should just go along with things and not make their voices heard is completely unamerican.

tracker1 1y ago
It is expressly limited by the Visa application, process and requirements that are agreed to as part of obtaining a Visa to enter the US.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  You keep claiming that. I can't find it in the document you linked. I think you are mistaken.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44893825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44893825

cowmix 1y ago

The “activism” angle is a red herring — they’re screwing with all foreign students now, regardless of what they do. And honestly, activism is one of the things that made the US stand apart — or used to. The US government, while far from perfect, was once seen as a neutral partner in research — a place where scientists from everywhere could coordinate, mix, and build. It cost us relatively little compared to what we gained, and that leadership was admired both domestically and globally. It wasn’t perfect, but it was pretty damn good — and now it’s being killed.

tracker1 1y ago
As mentioned in other threads... Visa holders are prohibited from working against, subverting, or otherwise advocating for the overthrow of US Govt or against standing policies. Why would you expect a significantly different result for a subversive foreign influence on a Visa vs an otherwise disclosed spy?