3 ms·

Private citizens fund scientific research through their taxes. This has been the most practical way to fund science for decades.

JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
>Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.] I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.
- convolvatron 4mo ago
  ignoring a gratuitous reference to use of force, absolutely. having a discussion as society about what we are funding is in fact democracy. sadly there is an issue in the sciences in that lay people may have difficulty seeing the benefit of connecting the dots. but we should try. and as flawed as it is, the adversarial system we have in the US is at least a forum for those discussion. using grep to defund grants that contain words we don't like is the exact opposite of measured and considerate. so is punishing scientists for the sin of working for a 'woke' institution. in fact all this seems extremely punitive, and not in the spirit of optimizing outcomes for costs at all. note that this policy explicitly removes the requirement to provide any kind of rationale. that sort of directly contradicts the notion that this is a measured discussion about priorities.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- frigidwalnut 4mo ago
  I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.
  - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
    It does make me livid, just as much as the waste of taxpayer money on pointless (and sometimes outright racist) research here makes me livid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48335722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48335722 Believe it or not, it's possible to hate both Kash Patel/Kristi Noem and the unelected bureaucrats burning tax money on awful research.
    - frigidwalnut 4mo ago
      Sure that’s fine. They funded research that you think is wasteful and you would like to have tools to provide that feedback. The issue with this OMB change is that it is not that. The OMB change is a change that allows the administration to cancel any grant for any reason without answering to citizens about it. BTW your “believe it or not” is quite condescending. Do you talk to people in real life like that?
      - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        The president is elected, the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not, that's the difference. >BTW your “believe it or not” is quite condescending. Do you talk to people in real life like that? Yes, especially when they're the sort of people who support taking my tax money to fund idiotic and outright racist "research".
        gammarator 4mo ago
        > the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not Russ Vought was not elected either.
        JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        Correct, bur he is directly accountable to and acting under the direction of elected officials, most other bureaucrats in the civil service are not.

JCTheDenthog 4mo ago

>Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.] I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.

convolvatron 4mo ago
ignoring a gratuitous reference to use of force, absolutely. having a discussion as society about what we are funding is in fact democracy. sadly there is an issue in the sciences in that lay people may have difficulty seeing the benefit of connecting the dots. but we should try. and as flawed as it is, the adversarial system we have in the US is at least a forum for those discussion. using grep to defund grants that contain words we don't like is the exact opposite of measured and considerate. so is punishing scientists for the sin of working for a 'woke' institution. in fact all this seems extremely punitive, and not in the spirit of optimizing outcomes for costs at all. note that this policy explicitly removes the requirement to provide any kind of rationale. that sort of directly contradicts the notion that this is a measured discussion about priorities.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
frigidwalnut 4mo ago
I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.
- JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
  It does make me livid, just as much as the waste of taxpayer money on pointless (and sometimes outright racist) research here makes me livid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48335722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48335722 Believe it or not, it's possible to hate both Kash Patel/Kristi Noem and the unelected bureaucrats burning tax money on awful research.
  - frigidwalnut 4mo ago
    Sure that’s fine. They funded research that you think is wasteful and you would like to have tools to provide that feedback. The issue with this OMB change is that it is not that. The OMB change is a change that allows the administration to cancel any grant for any reason without answering to citizens about it. BTW your “believe it or not” is quite condescending. Do you talk to people in real life like that?
    - JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
      The president is elected, the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not, that's the difference. >BTW your “believe it or not” is quite condescending. Do you talk to people in real life like that? Yes, especially when they're the sort of people who support taking my tax money to fund idiotic and outright racist "research".
      - gammarator 4mo ago
        > the bureaucrats that were making the decisions before were not Russ Vought was not elected either.
        JCTheDenthog 4mo ago
        Correct, bur he is directly accountable to and acting under the direction of elected officials, most other bureaucrats in the civil service are not.