7 ms·

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the pol

• reactordev 5mo ago
  The Chairman will have the final say
  • GuestFAUniverse 5mo ago
    Do you mean zombie-homelander?
• skywhopper 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  • coldtea 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    • mavelikara 5mo ago
      > A law which will be used from the opposite side just as well, as soon as the power switches hands again. This is the real test. If these changes are so bad, will someone campaign bare on overturning these? Will the “other side” change it? If they don’t, you know that they also agreed with it - this handwringing now is just for show.
      • Spooky23 5mo ago
        You’re thinking tactically. I actually thing the democrats will try to put the Trumpist stuff back in the box. They may not be able to. The rule of law requires trust and that’s gone, and will only be rebuilt by time. The reactionary Supreme Court has changed the character of the executive. That court will live for many years. The executive branch exists to represent the will of the chief executive. We’ve normalized criminal behavior with the abuse of pardons and crushed the institution of DOJ. These guys opened a very stupid Pandora’s box. The long game is brutal. When we need to start dismantling the military, that’s going to impact some places pretty severely, for example. The science and tech edge will be gone in a decade.
        • chadgpt3 5mo ago
          Have the Democrats ever put any power-grab instruments back in any boxes? I don't remember a time they have, and I don't think they'll start now. They are meek cowards.
          • deleted 5mo ago
            [deleted]
          • vharuck 5mo ago
            They joined Republicans in limiting presidential power after Watergate. Granted, these limitations usually come after gross abuses. But these are gross abuses, and there's no reason to think they won't get grosser.
          • Spooky23 5mo ago
            New York neutered the power of appointed officials and authorities after Robert Moses. As the other poster mentioned, the post-Vietnam Church committee was a democratic party-led, bipartisan committee that effectively heeled the CIA and exposed many of the pretty dark abuses committed in that era.
        • filoeleven 5mo ago
          [flagged]
    • titzer 5mo ago
      Ever served on an NSF panel?
    • somenameforme 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      • Spooky23 5mo ago
        It’s much cleaner now. “How does your work financially benefit the principal or his cronies? Dude, are you buying a Dell?”
      • hvb2 5mo ago
        Government, and taxation/subsidies in general, have and always will be a tool to encourage one thing and discourage the other. A lot of research won't be profitable for years to come or is even unlikely to be profitable at all, so you funding sources are limited. The government, having no profit motive, can encourage this kind of research by funding it. Typically the hope is that it'll lead to increased productivity or innovation down the line. You don't have to be a statistician to see that not all groups of the populace are represented equally among scholars. If you want all viewpoints covered from you populace, wouldn't that mean you want to try and push for inclusion there? That doesn't mean everything has to be inclusive but you sure can incentivize it
        • rand_r 5mo ago
          > all viewpoints covered from you populace This is the core of the issue. We don’t actually want all viewpoints represented because that wouldn’t by itself produce any value. You want someone to come up with the fundamental theorems of Calculus, linking the area of a curve with its anti-derivative, because that’s incredibly useful. Generically grabbing everyone’s view isn’t a competitive strategy. You need to be selective on things that are intrinsically useful and promote that.
          • ipaddr 5mo ago
            But the research becomes how much coffee can someone drink before it's unhealthy type studies. The study you mention can be founded with pen and paper. No expensive trials or heavy equipment or team needed.
          • 5mo ago
    • bonsai_spool 5mo ago
      This is so wrong-headed of a statement that I’m actually shocked. Do you even know how grants work? You’re speaking about scoring designed to ensure that all Americans (any sex, poverty level, ability, creed) benefit from the use of tax payer money. This was a metric that was well understood AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED. There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants. Edit: less incendiary. I am just very upset with how confident people are saying things that are absolutely wrong for internet points.
      • coldtea 5mo ago
        >There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants. And I didn't say it was (though, such scoring has been also a powerful weapon against certain grants being granted, the scoring criteria not always interpreted and used in a politically neutral way - that was just the marketing pitch). I spoke about how grants were already being connected to ideological pressure, both government and organisational, private sector grands: "You mispoke on that issue? No grant. You were of the wrong political perssuassion? No grant. Hurt the feelings of X group? No grant." That pressure was on even after they were handed. That's the same kind ideological gate-keeping, just not from an official appointee, but spread out in ideologically motivated peer review, academic acceptance mechanisms, (and going into the private grants, sponsors), etc. Research funding has never been insulated from politics. The difference is now a part of the overall approval becomes openly and transparently political.
        • bonsai_spool 5mo ago
          >> There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants. > And I didn't say it was (though, such scoring has been also a powerful weapon against certain grants being granted, the scoring criteria not always interpreted and used in a politically neutral way - that was just the marketing pitch). Your own words, not mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48340780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48340780 > That pressure was on even after they were handed There is a scoring matrix that simply requires grantees not to ignore huge portions of the nation in their research. You didn't even need to score highly here if you scored highly elsewhere. Just not pretend that people with disabilities or other non-majority groups are deserving of attention in taxpayer-funded research. > Research funding has never been insulated from politics. The difference is now a part of the overall approval becomes openly and transparently political. It was always open and towards the goal of supporting America. If you cannot understand what is different, I think there is little hope in writing to you. I respond for the benefit of those who may not already understand how this process works and who aren't carrying water for a political party.
    • brookst 5mo ago
      You did exactly what GP was commenting on - conflating something that happened occasionally in the past with policy that mandates it should happen every time today. Yes, grants were given and revoked for political purposes in the past. But what percentage of grant proposals were reviewed by an appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink? It did happen, but it was ad hoc and amateur. Today’s administration is formalizing Soviet-style political reviews of science. It’s scary, and it’s a mistake to hold up occasional (but serious!) mistakes from the past to justify systematic evil today.
      • FpUser 5mo ago
        >"Today’s administration is formalizing Soviet-style political reviews of science." He who kills the dragon becomes one.
      • coldtea 5mo ago
        >But what percentage of grant proposals were reviewed by an appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink? It did happen, but it was ad hoc and amateur. Small consolation for those excluded. It wasn't "occasional (but serious!) mistakes" it was systematic ideological control. I'd say explicit is better than implicit. Less hypocrisy, and more transparency. And at least now that this shit is officially set as word to paper, and is out in the open, the other side, when in power, can dismantle it and make into law guarantees that such wrongthink persecution wont happen again. But they wont. They'll use the same mechanism of "appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink". Because it was never about the principle. It was about doing it convertly as long as they politically/ideologically controlled those establishments. Controlling them through government power will suit them too, as much as it suits the other side.
    • insane_dreamer 5mo ago
      Whether knowingly or unknowingly, your post is factually wrong.
    • simonw 5mo ago
      "You mispoke on that issue? No grant. You were of the wrong political perssuassion? No grant. Hurt the feelings of X group? No grant." Are you talking about not getting the grant in the first place, or are you talking about grants being cancelled after they had been approved and you had taken the money and started doing the funded work? Those two situations are different.
      • SubiculumCode 5mo ago
        They are different situations, but both are equally applicable here. 1. Grants can be canceled at will. 2. All grants are approved or denied by political appointees, who are instructed to only treat peer review as advisory considerations.
        • SubiculumCode 5mo ago
          For those who disagree, see [1] [1] https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-changes-in-ombs-proposed?r=6jt49w&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-change...
      • coldtea 5mo ago
        Both happened, and ideologically alligned people controlled or influenced both steps of the process (and more).
  • therealpygon 5mo ago
    If someone is lying about what someone else did, it’s often either what they are doing or plan to do. It’s true in most situations and administrations, but objectively worse in the current. (Ignoring the whole marginalized vs anti-DEI arguments, which I consider SOP for a new administration with new goals.) As well, any new rulings or laws that are designed to expire right before an election are almost always the mechanisms used for those abuses claimed as being perpetrated by others. And the number of things designed this way seem to be stacking up relatively quickly. The reasoning is quite straightforward, “I want to make sure you can’t do the things I was just doing to you.” Otherwise there wouldn’t be a reason for policies that are good for everyone to expire at the end of a presidential term.
  • dfxm12 5mo ago
    Remember, every accusation is an admission. It's been proven time and time again with this admin.
    • lpcvoid 5mo ago
      [dead]
  • outside1234 5mo ago
    This is how everything has been. They are telling on themselves. Election fraud, “The Swamp”, all of it. It was a roadmap.
  • deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  • matthewdgreen 5mo ago
    This is a lesson I've learned over thirty years. If the GOP says "the Democrats are doing X" then you can be assured the winning Republican plans to do X (or already has.) It inoculates them. Crushing academic free speech is just one of several X's.
    • Arodex 4mo ago
      "Every accusation is a confession" has got so much mileage with the GOP...
• evrydayhustling 5mo ago
  Besides the brutal impact on those already invested in the American research community, this is one more nail in the coffin when it comes to competing for new talent. What researcher in their right mind would move their research and their future to the USA to join this clown rodeo? It is unbelievable to watch my country give up its most unfair (and yet mostly positive) advantage -- a nearly free option on the top talent of the entire planet. Here's hoping that the increasingly multipolar research world can find ways to be even more efficient in creating new knowledge.
  • sandworm101 5mo ago
    Well, any research related to weapons programs. Jobs/grants in the fields of laser research, AI, material sciences, mathematics, chemistry and aerospace are safe... so long as you dont talk to outsiders.
    • platevoltage 5mo ago
      As long as you don't step out line of course.
    • tremon 5mo ago
      so long as you dont talk to outsiders outsiders like... their immediate family back home?
      • sandworm101 5mo ago
        Yes. Having "foreign contacts" is bad, even family members. If the family was somewhere like china then these would be called "adversarial foreign contacts". Culture has changed in the last ten years. People with grandparents in china are having significant problems when applying for jobs/clearances. https://clearedjobs.net/guides/security-clearance-foreign-contacts https://clearedjobs.net/guides/security-clearance-foreign-co... >> A foreign national spouse who is a citizen of the United Kingdom will be evaluated very differently from a foreign national spouse who is a citizen of China or Russia. Both must be disclosed fully, but the national security concern level is substantially different. Applicants with significant ties to adversarial countries face more intensive investigations and, in some cases, may not be eligible for certain programs even if their individual loyalty is not in question.
• SoftTalker 5mo ago
  My father was a Ph.D., a research scientist at a large state university. After understanding how political everything is under the surface, he cautioned me from ever working in a field that depended on government funding. "What one administration gives you, the next one can take away" is close to a literal quote. Outsiders like to imagine that the pure pursuit of science without any agendas is what university research is all about. That is mostly a veneer.
  • matthewdgreen 5mo ago
    "Political" in the context of research funding generally doesn't mean what it means under this administration. Administrations have always shifted priorities as far as what scientific fields they want to fund, and individual PMs have also made more opinionated choices. This is normal and expected. A DARPA PM is limited to a 7-year term to ensure that fresh blood constantly enters the system. What's happening now is political in the "partisan political" sense, where specific grants are being killed because they violate political priorities or because the researchers spoke up against the President. This is new. ETA: Slightly off topic, but a colleague had his already-granted NSF grant killed by DOGE because it contained the word "censorship". He was researching ways to allow Iranian people to bypass their regime's Internet censorship.
    • Terr_ 4mo ago
      Some people think that as long as they "don't make waves", they'll be safe from creeping fascism. It's not true, because The people who want power will just make a typo—or do a stupid keyword match—and now Harry Buttle is gone. They have no incentive to be consistent or accurate.
  • PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
    > "What one administration gives you, the next one can take away" is close to a literal quote. We created laws to prevent this from being the case. They work(ed) most of the time. The current administration believed that it didn't have to follow those laws. After being slapped down multiple times by courts for this, they want to change the law(s) so that what your father said becomes true. But worse - "what the administration gave you last week, they can take away next week".
• xhkkffbf 5mo ago
  [flagged]
• nutjob2 5mo ago
  Put more simply, it all becomes a slush fund for the regime in power.
• onlyrealcuzzo 5mo ago
  Ah, yes, grants should definitely be tied to how much you want to brownnose for the current political team. What could go wrong? Definitely not more corruption. Definitely not more uncertainty that kills gross fixed capital formation.
• jballer 5mo ago
  This cuts both ways: grants are more valuable as political favors when they are immune to cancellation, and grants with objectively-established value are harder to terminate without political blowback.
  • SubiculumCode 4mo ago
    When grants are primarily determined by peer review from scientists, with strict enforcement of rules preventing conflicts of interest, they are not about political favors, but easy cancelation of those grants makes science makes for a terrible research environment.
• appreciatorBus 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  • SubiculumCode 5mo ago
    Complete ignorance on your part, both about the degree of sexual dimorphism, and your apparent, assumed position that gender diverse identities do not have biological origins. There is insufficient data to make firm conclusions, but I will note that brain differences are observed.
    • appreciatorBus 5mo ago
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
      • wileydragonfly 5mo ago
        There’s a BOY in the girls bathroom!!!
        • appreciatorBus 5mo ago
          [dead]
      • phs318u 5mo ago
        The sex requirements for procreation are orthogonal to the spectrum of sex variation observed. https://archive.is/2025.02.21-160254/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/ https://archive.is/2025.02.21-160254/https://www.scientifica...
        • appreciatorBus 5mo ago
          You didn’t read the article. There are two developmental pathways for sexual reproduction: - one produces small mobile gametes - one produces large immobile gametes There can be plenty of variation in how an individual organism in different species ends up on one pathway or the other, there can be plenty of variation in how an individual organism on either pathway develops, and there can be plenty of variation in how an individual on either pathway behaves. But in sexually reproductive organisms, there are only two pathways. A male who wants to obey stereotypical feminine stereotypes in behaviour and dress is free to do so, but it doesn’t make him any kind of female, or a different kind of male.
• throwaway85825 5mo ago
  >If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. That's how its always been, it's just that most people are not attuned to academic politics.
  • SubiculumCode 5mo ago
    Bullshit. Academic politics exist but not to the degree your comment suggests. These are not equivalent situations.
    • BoingBoomTschak 4mo ago
      Yeah, let's look at the sociology field and oh....
• boredatoms 5mo ago
  What do they think will happen when the other party gets power