4 ms·

Generally, no, because jobs can be reinstated and money recompensated. Irreparable harm is harm that is... well... not reparable.

by kolbe 1y ago

davidw 1y ago
When entire labs are shut down, work halted, experiments frozen, people move on because they need to eat, this is absolutely going to cause irreparable harm to those specific people and programs, as well as science in the United States. (Edited to reflect that the harm is both specific and general) My wife works in science and is seeing some of the effects of all this, and it's going to be a generational hit to research and development in this country. If the Europeans were smart and faster moving they would have large scale programs to hire up people and move them over there, because there are tons of brilliant people doing important work that are being left high and dry.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > this is absolutely going to cause irreparable harm to science in the United States Science isn't the plaintiff. > If the Europeans were smart and faster moving they would have large scale programs to hire up people and move them over there, because there are tons of brilliant people doing important work that are being left high and dry. Science often requires a lot of money, and generally Europe would rather wait for America to spend the money and make the discoveries while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    > Science isn't the plaintiff. But scientists are and science is the industry that is being harmed. > Europe would rather wait for America to spend the money and make the discoveries while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties. And so now we’re not spending the money on discoveries and also cutting back on the social “niceties” we had spent whatever little amount of money on?
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      > whatever little amount of money on The US has been spending the most globally, in real terms per capita[0] and a percentage of GDP[1] on healthcare for a long time. How on earth can you justify the phrase "little amount of money"? The problem wasn't the amount spent. The problem was the terrible hybrid of regulations that let the private sector down crazy rabbit-holes of false value to chase and be paid for, instead of just direct exposure to the real health market's needs. [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?end=2023&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=2000&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?end=2... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_... (technically three massively smaller economies contribute more as a % of GDP, but that's off a crazily lower base)
      - vlovich123 1y ago
        Reading comprehension is important. Correct. The US as a country spends a lot more on health care than if there was a government-run single-payer system. I'm responding to this: > while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties. The US government doesn't pay for the "social nicety" of health care & in fact makes more money since that dues to private insurance industry generates even more tax revenue. You can claim it's the regulations but all evidence I've read suggests it's the lack of single-payer system which removes the ability to negotiate + increases the complexity of the system because as a provider you have to pay more people to manage insurance payments with all the different providers vs 1 central provider.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > But scientists are and science is the industry that is being harmed But the law doesn’t afford scientists any right to sue on the basis that they think the administration’s policy is bad for science writ large. That’s a policy determination outside the power of the courts to second guess. (Read *Marbury v. Madison and specifically the parts talking about ministerial actions. Courts can only enjoin executive officials to take ministerial actions the law clearly requires, not second guess the executive’s discretionary decisions.) The actual legal rights the scientists can exercise are similar to those of any government contractor. If you have a contract to run a hotdog stand on a military base, the government has certain limitations on what it can and can’t do.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - flir 1y ago
    Glad to hear you'll be implementing universal healthcare with the savings from the NSF. *eyeroll*
  - jltsiren 1y ago
    Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP. The US is ahead in business R&D. But research funding is mostly used for hiring early-career researchers for fixed-term positions. If Europe wants to attract foreign academic talent, its universities need permanent increases in core funding for hiring additional faculty. And that's something European politicians largely don't support.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    Europe is not a country, and individual European countries have orders of magnitude smaller budgets than the US does.
- noobermin 1y ago
  The rest of the world gets to benefit from the american brain drain, already in progress. The US is essentially going to turn into a similar shape as russia, a country with nukes but a shadow of its former prestige and soft power.
mattlutze 1y ago
Except jobs can't be just reinstated when people are out of them so long that the knowledge moves elsewhere or experiments expire. Irreparable harm also includes things like injury to reputation, goodwill, professional practice. The impending harm here is explicit, immediate, and as demonstrated previously serious for these labs and research fields. It's unfortunate that Judge Cobb didn't find this to be sufficient, but hopefully on appeals some relief may be offered. Temporary loss of income is I think not generally a basis for irreparable harm for more or less the argument you hint at.
- dataflow 1y ago
  > Except jobs can't be just reinstated when people are out of them so long that the knowledge moves elsewhere or experiments expire. Experiments expiring seems like a more compelling argument than knowledge moving elsewhere. The theory behind irreparable seems to be "it can't be fixed with money," not "you don't have enough money to fix it." If someone goes to a competitor then presumably there is an amount of money that would bring them back - it just might be out of your reach.
  - roxolotl 1y ago
    The problem with this approach is that so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck that job interruptions quickly become irreparable even with infinite money as the eventual solution. It’s not that extreme for someone to go from job loss to losing most everything else over the course of 6 to 12 months because there’s little to no safety net.
  - SoftTalker 1y ago
    It's a bit odd that we have such a huge personal injury lawsuit industry then? As "pain and suffering" or wrongful death cannot be fixed with money either.
- kolbe 1y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree with your logic, but that's not what the legal term is referring to. Too many people on HN think law is what they want it to be--not what it is. That term is generally reserved for things that are totally irreparable. Nothing you mentioned can't be made up for later. It is 100% clear that, yes, there is harm being done. It's not at all clear that the harm is irreparable. They usually apply the term to things that are actually irreparable like the death penalty (can't resuscitate the dead person).

Generally, no, because jobs can be reinstated and money recompensated. Irreparable harm is harm that is... well... not reparable.

by kolbe 1y ago

Generally, no, because jobs can be reinstated and money recompensated. Irreparable harm is harm that is... well... not reparable.

davidw 1y ago

When entire labs are shut down, work halted, experiments frozen, people move on because they need to eat, this is absolutely going to cause irreparable harm to those specific people and programs, as well as science in the United States. (Edited to reflect that the harm is both specific and general) My wife works in science and is seeing some of the effects of all this, and it's going to be a generational hit to research and development in this country. If the Europeans were smart and faster moving they would have large scale programs to hire up people and move them over there, because there are tons of brilliant people doing important work that are being left high and dry.

philipallstar 1y ago
> this is absolutely going to cause irreparable harm to science in the United States Science isn't the plaintiff. > If the Europeans were smart and faster moving they would have large scale programs to hire up people and move them over there, because there are tons of brilliant people doing important work that are being left high and dry. Science often requires a lot of money, and generally Europe would rather wait for America to spend the money and make the discoveries while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties.
- vlovich123 1y ago
  > Science isn't the plaintiff. But scientists are and science is the industry that is being harmed. > Europe would rather wait for America to spend the money and make the discoveries while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties. And so now we’re not spending the money on discoveries and also cutting back on the social “niceties” we had spent whatever little amount of money on?
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > whatever little amount of money on The US has been spending the most globally, in real terms per capita[0] and a percentage of GDP[1] on healthcare for a long time. How on earth can you justify the phrase "little amount of money"? The problem wasn't the amount spent. The problem was the terrible hybrid of regulations that let the private sector down crazy rabbit-holes of false value to chase and be paid for, instead of just direct exposure to the real health market's needs. [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?end=2023&most_recent_value_desc=true&start=2000&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?end=2... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_... (technically three massively smaller economies contribute more as a % of GDP, but that's off a crazily lower base)
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      Reading comprehension is important. Correct. The US as a country spends a lot more on health care than if there was a government-run single-payer system. I'm responding to this: > while laughing at them for not spending the money on social niceties. The US government doesn't pay for the "social nicety" of health care & in fact makes more money since that dues to private insurance industry generates even more tax revenue. You can claim it's the regulations but all evidence I've read suggests it's the lack of single-payer system which removes the ability to negotiate + increases the complexity of the system because as a provider you have to pay more people to manage insurance payments with all the different providers vs 1 central provider.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > But scientists are and science is the industry that is being harmed But the law doesn’t afford scientists any right to sue on the basis that they think the administration’s policy is bad for science writ large. That’s a policy determination outside the power of the courts to second guess. (Read *Marbury v. Madison and specifically the parts talking about ministerial actions. Courts can only enjoin executive officials to take ministerial actions the law clearly requires, not second guess the executive’s discretionary decisions.) The actual legal rights the scientists can exercise are similar to those of any government contractor. If you have a contract to run a hotdog stand on a military base, the government has certain limitations on what it can and can’t do.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- flir 1y ago
  Glad to hear you'll be implementing universal healthcare with the savings from the NSF. *eyeroll*
- jltsiren 1y ago
  Europe spends more on academic research than the US, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of GDP. The US is ahead in business R&D. But research funding is mostly used for hiring early-career researchers for fixed-term positions. If Europe wants to attract foreign academic talent, its universities need permanent increases in core funding for hiring additional faculty. And that's something European politicians largely don't support.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Europe is not a country, and individual European countries have orders of magnitude smaller budgets than the US does.
noobermin 1y ago
The rest of the world gets to benefit from the american brain drain, already in progress. The US is essentially going to turn into a similar shape as russia, a country with nukes but a shadow of its former prestige and soft power.

mattlutze 1y ago

Except jobs can't be just reinstated when people are out of them so long that the knowledge moves elsewhere or experiments expire. Irreparable harm also includes things like injury to reputation, goodwill, professional practice. The impending harm here is explicit, immediate, and as demonstrated previously serious for these labs and research fields. It's unfortunate that Judge Cobb didn't find this to be sufficient, but hopefully on appeals some relief may be offered. Temporary loss of income is I think not generally a basis for irreparable harm for more or less the argument you hint at.

dataflow 1y ago
> Except jobs can't be just reinstated when people are out of them so long that the knowledge moves elsewhere or experiments expire. Experiments expiring seems like a more compelling argument than knowledge moving elsewhere. The theory behind irreparable seems to be "it can't be fixed with money," not "you don't have enough money to fix it." If someone goes to a competitor then presumably there is an amount of money that would bring them back - it just might be out of your reach.
- roxolotl 1y ago
  The problem with this approach is that so many Americans live paycheck to paycheck that job interruptions quickly become irreparable even with infinite money as the eventual solution. It’s not that extreme for someone to go from job loss to losing most everything else over the course of 6 to 12 months because there’s little to no safety net.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  It's a bit odd that we have such a huge personal injury lawsuit industry then? As "pain and suffering" or wrongful death cannot be fixed with money either.
kolbe 1y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with your logic, but that's not what the legal term is referring to. Too many people on HN think law is what they want it to be--not what it is. That term is generally reserved for things that are totally irreparable. Nothing you mentioned can't be made up for later. It is 100% clear that, yes, there is harm being done. It's not at all clear that the harm is irreparable. They usually apply the term to things that are actually irreparable like the death penalty (can't resuscitate the dead person).