3 ms·

I disagree with this move, but the people who lost these positions were in temporary advisory roles. This isn’t a career job for them. The article says 8 membe

I disagree with this move, but the people who lost these positions were in temporary advisory roles. This isn’t a career job for them. The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long. Between 1/4 or 1/2 of them would have been replaced during this presidency, and whoever gets placed now will start to be replaced by the next administration. As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory committees overseeing government decisions. They’re definitely not known for inviting foreigners to come join their government to oversee their spending. So if you’re implying these people are at risk of going to China to serve the same role, that’s way off the mark.

joe_mamba 6mo ago
>The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long. So it's similar to working for the UN or IAEA where most jobs are fixed term.
jazzyjackson 6mo ago
I expect this will have downstream effects on more careers than just these 24 people.
citizenkeen 6mo ago
I don’t share your optimism that these positions will be replaced. I don’t know why you think they would be.
- huxley 6mo ago
  Oh they’ll be replaced, by toadies and GOP Youth interns looking for a salary and resume boost
  - lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
      We're just telling you what the President says! It's his explicit position, which he repeats constantly, that everyone in the government should be personally loyal to him and never do anything he doesn't want them to do. If you'd prefer for his side not to be full of toadies, you'll have to take it up with him; he's making a conscious decision to do things that way.
      - lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > Executive branch shouldn't be beholden to the Executive? No. It should be beholden to the law. And sometimes the law creates independent agencies because that’s the only way to administer a complex, free society.
        lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
        The law creates independent agencies?????? What?
        SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
        It's really a quite boring take. The executive branch is not the President's personal property; he's a temporary custodian of it on behalf of the American people, and he has a duty to faithfully execute the laws Congress passed. He has no legitimate power to randomly smash things just because he'd personally like for them to be different.
        lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
        The "American People" are not the bureaucrats working under the Presidency. The American People are the common people that vote to have their will be represented. And the President represents that will. The government is the property of the public, the very people that assigned and put in place a President of their choosing, to direct a branch of the government. In effect to exert the power of the People. The President in effect very much has the legitimate power, as given by the American People, to smash everything and anything under the Executive branch. The wish of the President is in effect the wish of the people that have elected the President.
tensor 6mo ago
Oh so only 1/2 to 3/4 of them were terminated far outside of norms. I guess only 50%-75% corrupt anti-science activity is totally ok.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory They’re not. But I’m currently pessimistic about America’s ability to maintain technological leadership beyond the early 2030s and I’d like to see what the alternatives are. (I’ve been impressed by what India is doing, both in research and commercialization, as I have with Ukraine. I’ve been impressed by EU research.)
nixon_why69 6mo ago
China absolutely has a national academy of sciences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences They have and do oversight, generally with scary commie sounding names but presumably the same day-to-day as the NSF.
- stogot 6mo ago
  The article talked about the board pushing back on political decisions. Do you really think Chinese oversight boards push back on political officers? Do they take to the press to lambast Xi?
  - nixon_why69 6mo ago
    Politics are different in China, certainly nobody is going to the press. But they also have a culture where lots of politicians have technical degrees, and they've gotten better results as far as government and science. You don't have the problem of "global warming isn't real for cultural reasons" in the first place.
    - kasey_junk 6mo ago
      The Soviet Union had great math & science research infrastructure and leaders who were science and technologists. They still had political pressure that conflicted with science. Why would we think China is any different?
      - nixon_why69 6mo ago
        You don't have to be convinced. I'm in Wuhan right now and self-driving cars and autonomous delivery vehicles are pretty common. They have nice electric Buicks here because the local org that worked with GM for the brand has surpassed GM at building Buicks. The US of 2026 has specific ideological pressure against scientists that is not nearly as bad as the cultural revolution but in the same direction. It's not about which science would be good for Americans, or what would be the most effective directions to pursue, which way is best to minimize corruption while we invest in things that benefit everyone -- it's about the existence of particular scientific facts being politically incorrect therefore they must be suppressed, and additionally these scientists are effeminate elites and we hate them. China does not have these attitudes in 2026. They have problems and are not perfect but they're probably better on "give scientists the ability to influence policy".

joe_mamba 6mo ago

>The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long. So it's similar to working for the UN or IAEA where most jobs are fixed term.

jazzyjackson 6mo ago

I expect this will have downstream effects on more careers than just these 24 people.

citizenkeen 6mo ago

I don’t share your optimism that these positions will be replaced. I don’t know why you think they would be.

huxley 6mo ago
Oh they’ll be replaced, by toadies and GOP Youth interns looking for a salary and resume boost
- lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
    We're just telling you what the President says! It's his explicit position, which he repeats constantly, that everyone in the government should be personally loyal to him and never do anything he doesn't want them to do. If you'd prefer for his side not to be full of toadies, you'll have to take it up with him; he's making a conscious decision to do things that way.
    - lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > Executive branch shouldn't be beholden to the Executive? No. It should be beholden to the law. And sometimes the law creates independent agencies because that’s the only way to administer a complex, free society.
        lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
        The law creates independent agencies?????? What?
      - SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
        It's really a quite boring take. The executive branch is not the President's personal property; he's a temporary custodian of it on behalf of the American people, and he has a duty to faithfully execute the laws Congress passed. He has no legitimate power to randomly smash things just because he'd personally like for them to be different.
        lacy_tinpot 6mo ago
        The "American People" are not the bureaucrats working under the Presidency. The American People are the common people that vote to have their will be represented. And the President represents that will. The government is the property of the public, the very people that assigned and put in place a President of their choosing, to direct a branch of the government. In effect to exert the power of the People. The President in effect very much has the legitimate power, as given by the American People, to smash everything and anything under the Executive branch. The wish of the President is in effect the wish of the people that have elected the President.

tensor 6mo ago

Oh so only 1/2 to 3/4 of them were terminated far outside of norms. I guess only 50%-75% corrupt anti-science activity is totally ok.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory They’re not. But I’m currently pessimistic about America’s ability to maintain technological leadership beyond the early 2030s and I’d like to see what the alternatives are. (I’ve been impressed by what India is doing, both in research and commercialization, as I have with Ukraine. I’ve been impressed by EU research.)

nixon_why69 6mo ago

China absolutely has a national academy of sciences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences They have and do oversight, generally with scary commie sounding names but presumably the same day-to-day as the NSF.

stogot 6mo ago
The article talked about the board pushing back on political decisions. Do you really think Chinese oversight boards push back on political officers? Do they take to the press to lambast Xi?
- nixon_why69 6mo ago
  Politics are different in China, certainly nobody is going to the press. But they also have a culture where lots of politicians have technical degrees, and they've gotten better results as far as government and science. You don't have the problem of "global warming isn't real for cultural reasons" in the first place.
  - kasey_junk 6mo ago
    The Soviet Union had great math & science research infrastructure and leaders who were science and technologists. They still had political pressure that conflicted with science. Why would we think China is any different?
    - nixon_why69 6mo ago
      You don't have to be convinced. I'm in Wuhan right now and self-driving cars and autonomous delivery vehicles are pretty common. They have nice electric Buicks here because the local org that worked with GM for the brand has surpassed GM at building Buicks. The US of 2026 has specific ideological pressure against scientists that is not nearly as bad as the cultural revolution but in the same direction. It's not about which science would be good for Americans, or what would be the most effective directions to pursue, which way is best to minimize corruption while we invest in things that benefit everyone -- it's about the existence of particular scientific facts being politically incorrect therefore they must be suppressed, and additionally these scientists are effeminate elites and we hate them. China does not have these attitudes in 2026. They have problems and are not perfect but they're probably better on "give scientists the ability to influence policy".