5 ms·

Please understand that the goal of these policies is to weaken scientific research in the US. The people who push this stuff acknowledge openly that they oppose

Please understand that the goal of these policies is to weaken scientific research in the US. The people who push this stuff acknowledge openly that they oppose science, experts, and accurate information. This isn't a misunderstanding or a fumble.

spwa4 2mo ago
... who are unfortunately backed by a large part of the US population who have elected them on exactly that promise, for various reasons. From fear of vaccines to having various other nations freeride on US research. That so many people think like this is the underlying problem.
- carbocation 2mo ago
  The public overwhelmingly supports NIH-funded research. https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/new-survey-finds-overwhelming-public-support-for-federal-funding-for-medical-and-cancer-research/ https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/n...
  - cogman10 2mo ago
    The issue, I think, is a large number of people don't realize the NIH or NIS exists or know what they do. I think most people support them once the realize exactly what they are doing. How could you not when "They research treatments for diseases" is basically all they do.
- bonoboTP 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - gr_norm 2mo ago
    > The Great Cause diverts all the money to itself. Be very specific about exactly what you mean here, with links to reputable sources. You're making extraordinarily strong accusations; vagueness does not suffice to convince.
    - bonoboTP 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - gr_norm 2mo ago
        Then be ignored. Your subjective feelings bear nothing on the question of science funding.
        deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
    - mindslight 2mo ago
      Dignity is the fundamental problem that they're bemoaning. When scientists and other intellectual positions are funded beyond scraps and subsistence wages, they use some of the breathing room to start to asking questions about societal power structures. When they're afforded political voices, they start applying their critiques to how their own institutions are run - rather than keeping their heads down as "efficient" worker bees for the business vectoralists. And critiques/conclusions where they've gone cloyingly overboard then serve as convenient straw men that demonstrate how "out of touch" they are from "the real world".
Nextgrid 2mo ago
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?
- gpm 2mo ago
  Punishing apparent ideological enemies is a long standing mechanism for fascists and dictators - and scientists in the US qualify. It's an attempt to make people fear standing against them. Destroying sources of truth is a long standing goal for those who want people to act against their own interest, and scientists are a source of truth. It's shrinking the pie so that the republican leadership can capture a much bigger slice of it.
- numpad0 2mo ago
  I know this isn't HN type of a topic or a comment, but looking at US from outside, the theme looks to be explicitly destroying US hegemony and meritocracy... What I feel to be a common denominator for Trump, Thiel/Musk, and MAGA types, is that they are the people who "otherwise wouldn't have been chosen" for one reason or another. I've had stupidly engaged in a pointless argument with MAGA type people on some anonymous forum, and what I slowly realized is that a lot of them fail to hide having an okay picture of the actual reality when absolutely cornered and pushed hard, with the caveat that the chances for them getting any win whatsoever by embracing some alternative, conspiracy, false narratives is above zero, whereas the same for not doing so is at very most zero. There have been news reports of Bill Gates and Elon Musk both having engaged in quite some reprehensible acts on some island, but Gates would still always come first on headlines whenever they would be in a photo together. This would be contrast to how media universally reports Musk throwing the Nazi salute(which is the worst I've seen in any media that unironically makes me wonder how a real neo nazi would pause, exhale, say "you know," and shut up in German on camera reviewing it), which do yield a bunch of single name headlines. They would not have a chance of getting dopamine hit standing straight on both feet and looking straight ahead uttering all the correct words. Destroying everything that gets in the way to end this their "suffering" seem like the goal to me. I mean, there's a very succinct and less nice word for that group of people that begins with the letter in the middle of the logo under the crown for the Dutch royal airline, but that word doesn't feel like it captures the verticality of this phenomenon.
kingleopold 2mo ago
Please understand that so many high IQ tech and science people support this, they voted and decided.
- SamoyedFurFluff 2mo ago
  Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? I’m not asking out of anger I genuinely don’t get it. Culture war issues like, idk, people becoming more brown by default in America, or a trans teenager participating in a game, they’re… they don’t seem as important as ensuring well funded science??
  - etc-hosts 2mo ago
    current administration is guided by the looniest of the loons Claremont Institute, who truly believe that any dollar not spent on border defense or offensive military capability is wasted.
  - nemomarx 2mo ago
    Lots of voters didn't believe Trump would do the things he campaigned on. "I'll defund research" can be interpreted as "probably that other research, the stuff I don't like or think is useless" by some.
  - spankibalt 2mo ago
    > Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? The list is long. First and foremost, it's never a good idea to forget that wherever there's intelligence there's always also stupidity. Then it's generally good advice not to confuse intelligence for wisdom. And between this and very long lists of cognitive biases, there's always the good old "Fuck ya, got mine!" Rule of Acquisition to remember. Et cetera.
    - virtue3 2mo ago
      good ole Rule of Acquisition #1 - Once you have their money, you never give it back.
tty456 2mo ago
They're deliberately weakening the U.S. Treason.
afpx 2mo ago
They should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.
- YeahThisIsMe 2mo ago
  The fraud is the point with this administration.
  - smallmancontrov 2mo ago
    Who has time to talk about billions in emoluments and pumping+dumping the American Economy to insider trade war news when we are subject to such calamitous fraud as a wet-behind-the-ears PhD getting overly enthusiastic in their grant proposal?
- SubiculumCode 2mo ago
  Frankly, this is a bit of an ignorant take. 1st, K-awards are specially meant to provide a funding path to support an early career scientist to continue in the field. Expecting that another team has already replicated the early work of a young scientist is not realistic. They are just starting out. 2nd. If you want replication, you got to fund replication. Researcher money doesn't appear out of nowhere, so make the decision, increase the science budget with a new replication budget. 3rd. Yes there is some fraud. Always has been. Is it more than before? Maybe? But unless you count paper mill journals that no serious scientist reads, it is much smaller than pop media makes it out to be.
  - afpx 2mo ago
    Why should the fruits of our labor be taken to pay for some rando’s job training? If they actually had any potential, they wouldn’t need job training and certainly wouldn’t need average people to pay for it. I’ll think of the poor researchers once we get the homeless in my hometown of Pittsburgh down to zero. Currently, real people matter more to me.
SubiculumCode 2mo ago
My job depends on NIH continuing to function, but it is not immediately clear that this particular decision follows other worrying trends discussed here previously. Removing K-awards for clinical trials (but not regular, cheaper study formats) might simply be a recognition that clinical trials are too expensive for the K-format and conducting underpowered clinical trials does not help anyone much.
- bdangubic 2mo ago
  might simply be is exactly right, very unlikely… and knowing what you know and have seen since Jan of 2025 you know how slim that “might” is
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
a-french-anon 2mo ago
Please, for your own sake and that of your ideals, don't fall into a Disney adult mentality of "these are bad guys who are clearly against Truth and Good^tm!" just because righteousness feels good. This falls under underestimating your enemy and never serves the people embracing said feeling.

spwa4 2mo ago

... who are unfortunately backed by a large part of the US population who have elected them on exactly that promise, for various reasons. From fear of vaccines to having various other nations freeride on US research. That so many people think like this is the underlying problem.

carbocation 2mo ago
The public overwhelmingly supports NIH-funded research. https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/new-survey-finds-overwhelming-public-support-for-federal-funding-for-medical-and-cancer-research/ https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/n...
- cogman10 2mo ago
  The issue, I think, is a large number of people don't realize the NIH or NIS exists or know what they do. I think most people support them once the realize exactly what they are doing. How could you not when "They research treatments for diseases" is basically all they do.
bonoboTP 2mo ago
[flagged]
- gr_norm 2mo ago
  > The Great Cause diverts all the money to itself. Be very specific about exactly what you mean here, with links to reputable sources. You're making extraordinarily strong accusations; vagueness does not suffice to convince.
  - bonoboTP 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - gr_norm 2mo ago
      Then be ignored. Your subjective feelings bear nothing on the question of science funding.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
  - mindslight 2mo ago
    Dignity is the fundamental problem that they're bemoaning. When scientists and other intellectual positions are funded beyond scraps and subsistence wages, they use some of the breathing room to start to asking questions about societal power structures. When they're afforded political voices, they start applying their critiques to how their own institutions are run - rather than keeping their heads down as "efficient" worker bees for the business vectoralists. And critiques/conclusions where they've gone cloyingly overboard then serve as convenient straw men that demonstrate how "out of touch" they are from "the real world".

Nextgrid 2mo ago

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?

gpm 2mo ago
Punishing apparent ideological enemies is a long standing mechanism for fascists and dictators - and scientists in the US qualify. It's an attempt to make people fear standing against them. Destroying sources of truth is a long standing goal for those who want people to act against their own interest, and scientists are a source of truth. It's shrinking the pie so that the republican leadership can capture a much bigger slice of it.
numpad0 2mo ago
I know this isn't HN type of a topic or a comment, but looking at US from outside, the theme looks to be explicitly destroying US hegemony and meritocracy... What I feel to be a common denominator for Trump, Thiel/Musk, and MAGA types, is that they are the people who "otherwise wouldn't have been chosen" for one reason or another. I've had stupidly engaged in a pointless argument with MAGA type people on some anonymous forum, and what I slowly realized is that a lot of them fail to hide having an okay picture of the actual reality when absolutely cornered and pushed hard, with the caveat that the chances for them getting any win whatsoever by embracing some alternative, conspiracy, false narratives is above zero, whereas the same for not doing so is at very most zero. There have been news reports of Bill Gates and Elon Musk both having engaged in quite some reprehensible acts on some island, but Gates would still always come first on headlines whenever they would be in a photo together. This would be contrast to how media universally reports Musk throwing the Nazi salute(which is the worst I've seen in any media that unironically makes me wonder how a real neo nazi would pause, exhale, say "you know," and shut up in German on camera reviewing it), which do yield a bunch of single name headlines. They would not have a chance of getting dopamine hit standing straight on both feet and looking straight ahead uttering all the correct words. Destroying everything that gets in the way to end this their "suffering" seem like the goal to me. I mean, there's a very succinct and less nice word for that group of people that begins with the letter in the middle of the logo under the crown for the Dutch royal airline, but that word doesn't feel like it captures the verticality of this phenomenon.

kingleopold 2mo ago

Please understand that so many high IQ tech and science people support this, they voted and decided.

SamoyedFurFluff 2mo ago
Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? I’m not asking out of anger I genuinely don’t get it. Culture war issues like, idk, people becoming more brown by default in America, or a trans teenager participating in a game, they’re… they don’t seem as important as ensuring well funded science??
- etc-hosts 2mo ago
  current administration is guided by the looniest of the loons Claremont Institute, who truly believe that any dollar not spent on border defense or offensive military capability is wasted.
- nemomarx 2mo ago
  Lots of voters didn't believe Trump would do the things he campaigned on. "I'll defund research" can be interpreted as "probably that other research, the stuff I don't like or think is useless" by some.
- spankibalt 2mo ago
  > Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? The list is long. First and foremost, it's never a good idea to forget that wherever there's intelligence there's always also stupidity. Then it's generally good advice not to confuse intelligence for wisdom. And between this and very long lists of cognitive biases, there's always the good old "Fuck ya, got mine!" Rule of Acquisition to remember. Et cetera.
  - virtue3 2mo ago
    good ole Rule of Acquisition #1 - Once you have their money, you never give it back.

tty456 2mo ago

They're deliberately weakening the U.S. Treason.

afpx 2mo ago

They should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.

YeahThisIsMe 2mo ago
The fraud is the point with this administration.
- smallmancontrov 2mo ago
  Who has time to talk about billions in emoluments and pumping+dumping the American Economy to insider trade war news when we are subject to such calamitous fraud as a wet-behind-the-ears PhD getting overly enthusiastic in their grant proposal?
SubiculumCode 2mo ago
Frankly, this is a bit of an ignorant take. 1st, K-awards are specially meant to provide a funding path to support an early career scientist to continue in the field. Expecting that another team has already replicated the early work of a young scientist is not realistic. They are just starting out. 2nd. If you want replication, you got to fund replication. Researcher money doesn't appear out of nowhere, so make the decision, increase the science budget with a new replication budget. 3rd. Yes there is some fraud. Always has been. Is it more than before? Maybe? But unless you count paper mill journals that no serious scientist reads, it is much smaller than pop media makes it out to be.
- afpx 2mo ago
  Why should the fruits of our labor be taken to pay for some rando’s job training? If they actually had any potential, they wouldn’t need job training and certainly wouldn’t need average people to pay for it. I’ll think of the poor researchers once we get the homeless in my hometown of Pittsburgh down to zero. Currently, real people matter more to me.

SubiculumCode 2mo ago

My job depends on NIH continuing to function, but it is not immediately clear that this particular decision follows other worrying trends discussed here previously. Removing K-awards for clinical trials (but not regular, cheaper study formats) might simply be a recognition that clinical trials are too expensive for the K-format and conducting underpowered clinical trials does not help anyone much.

bdangubic 2mo ago
might simply be is exactly right, very unlikely… and knowing what you know and have seen since Jan of 2025 you know how slim that “might” is

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

a-french-anon 2mo ago

Please, for your own sake and that of your ideals, don't fall into a Disney adult mentality of "these are bad guys who are clearly against Truth and Good^tm!" just because righteousness feels good. This falls under underestimating your enemy and never serves the people embracing said feeling.