hgoel
Last year, the mood in my field, that has been relatively
isolated from many of these impacts, was still very "these
are uncomfortable times, but it's still possible to pull
through".Recently, you can cut the tension in a room with
a knife whenever matters relating to government decision
making come up. Some coworkers are leaving science,
promising phds and postdocs leaving to other countries,
many of the more established scientists are maintaining
backup options.I too have re-evaluated my feelings and
decided that while I am not yet at the point of actively
looking to leave the US, besides the hassle of moving
itself, I would be fine with having to do so.
|
Rebuff5007
> whether there are black holes at a redshift of 10 or not
is not a partisan issue.Anything that depends on a basic
understanding of the scientific process, and resulting
scientific facts is absolutely a partisan issue right now.
|
> solid_fuel
I'm very familiar with the evangelical types who are
running the federal government right now. Anything
that doesn't support the claim that the earth is only
5000 years old is considered a partisan issue to these
fuckers.
|
> > Carioca
While this is a good long-term heuristic, I'd
describe the upper rungs of government as more
cynical on matters of science and theology than a
typical fundie.The only relevant difference is
that you might be able to push it back a bit on
"strategic interest" types of arguments
|
> > themafia
It seems like they did all this to please Elon
Musk and advantage SpaceX. The people at the top
are nihilists. They don't even believe the things
they say.
|
> BLKNSLVR
They would fund research to promote redshift and
suppress blueshift.The scientists need to market their
research to exploit the biases of the administration.
Sad that it's come to this.
|
> chasing
It certainly is when people are typing the word
"black" into the search field when deciding what
programs need to be cut...
|
> > vjvjvjvjghv
To be honest, research funding turned stupid
before DOGE. I remember talking a guy who was
struggling to write the mandatory diversity
statement for a grant in quantum computing.
|
> > > Ar-Curunir
Whatever diversity sections were required in
grant proposals are nothing compared to the
situation right now.If your guy couldn't say
stuff like we will do outreach to local CCs,
will design summer research programs, etc,
then they're just not a very good grant writer
|
> > > > albedoa
It's every time with these freaks:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44294
782
|
> > > > vjvjvjvjghv
Why attach this stuff to every grant? This
guy was dealing was dealing cutting edge
research using multi million dollar
equipment. Stuff only a few people world
wide know about. That's difficult
enough.This leads to purely performative
diversity statements that mean nothing in
the real world.
|
> > rurp
Seriously. I hope everyone understands that this
literally happened at a massive scale. So many
projects were killed simply because the project
name had a word on the banned words list. The
idiots at doge and elsewhere have simply ctrl+f
searched "woke" terms and ended projects without
the faintest idea of what they were killing. All
in the name of saving negative federal dollars.
|
> ghtbircshotbe
Not to mention the petroleum industry funding anti
climate change "science" for the past 50 years.
|
> nikanj
And the real partisan question is "should the US fund
studying the black holes", not the actual science
question
|
> > twothreeone
Which really tells you more about the state of
mind of people asking that question. What kind of
person isn't curious about the puzzle of their own
existence, or the nature of the physical reality
they live in (and yes, by "being curious" I mean
"being willing to put a tax dollar amount to
them")?
|
> > > justin66
> What kind of person isn't curious about the
puzzle of their own existence, or the nature
of the physical reality they live in (and yes,
by "being curious" I mean "being willing to
put a tax dollar amount to
them")?Creationists.
|
> > > littlekey
>What kind of person isn't curious about the
puzzle of their own existenceA person who
struggles to put food on the table and a roof
over their heads, for one.
|
> > > > ykonstant
I was raised in a working-class family in
Greece in the 1980s. We lived in what the
average US person would describe as
"squalor". Cockroaches crawling on our
faces style.My parents made only a few
luxury expenses: encyclopedias for us
children, and especially books about space
and the cosmos. So please speak for
yourself when talking about the interests
of struggling people.
|
> > > > datsci_est_2015
What a sleight of hand to suggest that
science funding gathered from taxes is
impacting the ability for poorer Americans
to afford their food. No wonder
politicization of science funding is so
successful on the right: it's so
rhetorically intoxicating.
|
> > > > > jiggawatts
Meanwhile a substantial fraction of
science research goes into improving
the efficiency of farming, which
pushes down food prices.I just watched
a video about how inept politicians
caused a food crisis in Sri Lanka
because they thought they knew better
than scientists, chemists, and
farmers: https://youtu.be/1S2wwbX_p_E
|
> > > > > littlekey
Yeah, that's the point I was making;
not that those people shouldn't be
interested in science funding, but
that when you're in that position
you're going to end up voting for
whoever promises you lower taxes etc.
(regardless of whether those promises
end up being just hot air).
|
> > > > > smileysteve
It's especially interesting because
prior to the time of the election, the
administration approved food funding
to states that GOP run states
rejected.
|
> > > > kstrauser
Sure, and it's a huge indictment of our
K-12 educational system. Investments in
science, as a whole, pay off many, many,
many times in returns. Same with
universities and other knowledge-building
institutions. If you want to raise
everyone's standard of living, the most
certain way is to increase investment in
those things.But alas, after many years of
convincing people that going to college
makes you dumber, enough people have
started believing it that they willing
vote against their own self-interest.
|
> > > > runako
> A person who struggles to put food on
the table and a roof over their heads, for
one.Most of humanity shared this
existence, and yet the language,
institutions, ontologies, etc around
existence come from those people who did
not have the food and housing security of
most Americans.The counterexamples are
numerous, but just start at the arts and
you'll quickly see there is not a
correlation between material comfort and
basic curiosity.
|
> > > > NeutralCrane
Well it's not like the budget cuts to
science are being redirected to those
people. It's going to the already rich.
|
> > > > xmprt
I agree. But that's what functioning
government is supposed to be for. You
don't build centuries long institutions by
focusing on day to day concerns. Sure
putting food on the table is important,
but also a lot of that food comes from
decades of research on agriculture and how
to breed genetically diverse yet resilient
crops.Today's standards are yesterday's
luxuries which were the day before's
scientific breakthroughs.And the idea that
science is what's breaking the bank when
it's barely a rounding error in the US
budget is laughable. It's hard to get
exact numbers for all R&D funding vs how
much we spent on the Iran war but my
estimates put just the single Iran war at
anywhere from 20-50% and the goals for the
Iran war are even more abstract and
arguably make things much worse for
average Americans on a day to day basis.
|
> > > > smileysteve
This implies that the money saved by
cutting research was fungible and not part
of a still increasing deficit, that the
government doesn't debt spend, and that
there aren't positive externalities
(including jobs, education, and supporting
services in addition to outcomes from the
research.Indeed, not only did research
programs get cut, but so did USDA funding
which both balanced farming and put food
on table. And this was a year after the
previous administration reduced the
deficit, sent food funding to states, of
which ~13 rejected the funding.Food
funding, which, has been studied to
increase economic output beyond it's
costs, similar to research funding.
|
> > > > preg_match
I thought we all learned our lesson from
DOGE. These savings don't go to you,
bubba. There is no check.
|
> > > > Ar-Curunir
Plenty of poor people across the world
have scientific curiosity
|
> > > > guru4consulting
stupidest response. There are tons of gov
waste that's 100 times more expensive,
less effective without any returns. Wars
are lot more expensive, net negative for
common folks (positive for war machinery
though..) And out of all this, you would
steal money from research and put it to
put food on table? :(
|
> > > gcanyon
> What kind of person isn't curious about the
puzzle of their own existenceA person who is
certain they already know the answer.
|
> > > nikanj
A person who's been told all the people doing
the science look down on them. Partially true,
too, based on how I've heard people talk about
"dumb redneck trump voters"
|
> > > > bigyabai
That's a form of collective punishment
that rewards their stigma. It would be
like revoking tax breaks for farmers
because you dislike rural American voters.
|
> > > > > lovich
I'm pretty for revoking tax breaks and
subsidies from farmers since they tend
to always complain about welfare
queens while they have their hand
out.They can individually have them
back if they can publicly state they
are receiving support from the state.
Don't even need to say if it's good or
bad, just acknowledge the reality.
|
> > > > > mcmoor
I've actually heard suggestions to do
that, at least.
|
> > > > NeutralCrane
I spent nearly a decade disgusted with
Trump but being contrarian by insisting
that it was understandable why voters
might support it, even if I felt they were
wrong.At this point, there's no defending
it. Anyone who supports this incarnation
of the Republican Party is as stupid and
backwards as they've been castigated.
|
> > > > > nikanj
But they should still give you money
to run your studies?
|
> > > > > > Windchaser
Well, yes, they should be
not-backwards.If you cut funding
for helpful science on the basis
of ignorant claims, you're acting
backwards. If you act backwards,
you may get called backwards.You
should still change, become
not-backwards, and fund science.
|
> > > wins32767
That's foolish. There is certainly an amount
of money on funding research that is
unreasonable! Determining where that line
should rest is an inherently political
question. Determining who should get funding
for that is also a political question. The
latter question was able to be papered over
for many years because the scientific
community generally contained roughly equal
members of both parties. Since that isn't true
any longer now "science" is getting treated
like interest group just like all the other
groups within the country. It's definitely
going to hurt the country in the long run, but
acting like this wasn't going to happen
eventually when the university system purged
itself of moderates and conservatives is
foolish and obscures the part of the problem
that came from the universities themselves.
|
> > > > wins32767
Like this from the article:> When Jenna
Norton, a program director at the National
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases (NIDDKD), first got to the
NIH 12 years ago, she wanted to increase
research into the social determinants of
health-structural racism in home-loan
practices meant that nonwhite people got
iced out of home ownership and
generational wealth, which forced them to
live in neighborhoods closer to toxic
sites such as factories and highways,
without sidewalks and amenities. "It's a
challenging field to quantify, but we're
getting to a place in science where we can
start asking these questions," Norton
says. Now the topic is verboten in U.S.
grants. "That whole line of research has
been shut off and censored because some
people find the words 'structural racism'
offensive."If you're a Republican, why
should you want to fund people who dump on
your view of the world with your taxes?
Why do scientists feel free to talk this
way about half the people who pay their
salaries? It's just dumb to act
politically and then get mad when people
on the other side treat you as a political
actor.My last gig was at a startup that
worked on SDoH issues for people on
Medicaid and you know what we did when the
administration changed? We started
emphasizing values that would resonate
with the new funders and dropped the SDoH
framing. Still helping the same people,
doing the same work, just talking about it
in their language. It makes me think a lot
of people aren't in this to do good
science or help people who need it, but
want their team to win more than they want
good outcomes.
|
> > > > > throw-the-towel
> If you're a Republican, why should
you want to fund people who dump on
your view of the world with your
taxes?A society where funding depends
on a person's political position
doesn't sound free.
|
> > > > > amanaplanacanal
The better question is: Why is it that
when republicans hear the word
"racism" they immediately think people
are talking about them? Are they
afraid of what research on racism will
show?
|
> > > > > > rurp
No that's a more partisan one, and
is exactly the sort of thing OP
was arguing against. If you want
broad based support for research
funding you will necessarily need
support from a lot of people you
personally find distasteful. You
can either try to appeal to people
across the spectrum and keep
bipartisan support, or label half
the country racist and deal with
the resulting backlash.As someone
who hates the current
administration and thinks it's
doing untold harm to our future,
I'm disappointed by how many
people in the sciences chose
option two.
|
> > > > > > amanaplanacanal
I don't understand. We shouldn't
research whether institutional
racism is causing problems?
Because Republicans don't want it
to be true? Is that the claim, or
am I confused about what you are
saying?
|
> > > > > > wins32767
Part of the issue here is that the
academy has lost the trust of
Republicans. So even if there are
results that institutional racism
is a significant factor, if it's
coming from someone who is "woke"
in their views it'll just be
dismissed. To them it feels like
using their tax dollars to fund
someone who is going to skew
results so they have a club to
beat them with. And a big part of
the reason they've lost trust is
that the academy doesn't
acknowledge when it's being
political (see "reality has a
liberal bias" in this thread or
your frame here, for that matter).
|
> > > > > > amanaplanacanal
The way science is supposed to
work, it doesn't matter who is
doing the study. Anybody can read
the resulting paper and see
whether the conclusions are
supported by the data. That's what
science is. Saying they don't
trust science is a pretty heavy
indictment that they have lost
their way. What are they proposing
to replace science with, vibes?
|
> > > > > > jibal
You're portraying Republicans as
fundamentally intellectually
dishonest people.I'm not one to
argue.
|
> > > > > > tbrownaw
> I don't understand. We shouldn't
research whether institutional
racism is causing problems?Is
"institutional racism" when
institutions do treat individuals
differently on the basis of race,
or when they make sure not to?I'm
used to seeing that term in
context of advocating for explicit
double standards.
|
> > > > > > Borealid
I will have a stab at legitimately
explaining the viewpoint you
profess not to
understand."Institutional" or
"structural" racism doesn't just
mean racism by one or two people
in power. It's the idea that the
majority of society demonstrates
some kind of racial bias, by
whatever means.Society is made up
of people.One of two things must,
logically, be true:1. A
SUBSTANTIAL portion of the people
who make up society exhibit some
kind of racist behavior, or2.
Structural racism is not a
widespread issueWhich one of these
two propositions must one believe
is likely if one is researching
the impact of structural racism?
Keep in mind people do not
generally don't go looking for
things they do not believe
exist.In other words, people don't
like other people believing
they-en-masse discriminate (even
IF they do), so taking actions
that only make sense if you think
that poorly of the everyman
offends them. It's not about what
someone wants to be true, it's
that investigating implies a level
of distrust in society some
members of that society find
uncivil.To use a blunt analogy,
"why not let me check your
underwear to make sure you haven't
soiled it? Do you just not want it
to be true?".
|
> > > > > > ordersofmag
You have misunderstood what
structural racism is. It is not
about the majority of people being
racist. Is about the systems being
constructed in ways that lead to
racist outcomes. You can have a
society with zero racist
individuals and if they continue
to enact the racist systems
(perhaps created by racist folks
long dead) you'll have structural
racism. I don't disagree with the
idea that the mis-understanding
you have is widespread though, and
would certainly be a cause for
folks not being comfortable with
the idea (as they have
mis-understood it).
|
> > > > > > naijaboiler
I compare it basketball. Due to
the goal being 10ft in the air, it
structurally biased against
shorter people. You don't need
actually size-ist for it to exist.
It's just inherent to how the
system of rules are constructed
|
> > > > > > kaitai
It's so disappointing that you
have made the mistake of thinking
that those two possibilities
listed cover the entire set of
possibilities.The Parable of the
Polygons is a cute case study that
shows that it is possible, in a
mathematical sense, to prefer
diversity and yet end up
segregated:
https://ncase.me/polygons/The
whole point of studying
institutional and structural
racism is that no one needs to be
racist per se to have racially
discriminatory outcomes. Perhaps a
good analogy is the higher
mortality rates among left-handed
people. We no longer persecute
them and drive them out of society
or beat them for their sin, and
yet, they die earlier due to
structural factors.I agree with
you that "people don't like other
people believing they-en-masse
discriminate." And that's why
science in the US is f*(&ed,
because somehow everyone takes
intellectual inquiry as some sort
of personal affront or verdict on
individual virtue, and that's the
one thing the American cannot
abide, the thought that someone
else is judging them and finding
them wanting.
|
> > > > > > datsci_est_2015
> or label half the country racist
and deal with the resulting
backlash.This is an unfair
characterization, and frankly, is
baseless political rhetoric.
Incredible propaganda job moneyed
interests have performed in order
to convince the right wing that
any research that asks probing
questions about equity
automatically implies anyone white
and conservative is "racist".My
favorite research that falls into
this category concerns the effects
of nuclear weapons testing on the
lands and livelihoods of
indigenous peoples. Clearly,
nakedly something that anyone with
a decent moral compass would give
a shit about, but pulled under the
umbrella of DEI because empathy is
dead.
|
> > > > > > wins32767
It's not propaganda, it's all the
normal people on the left in my
life who have in the last 5-6
years started calling anyone to
their right on social justice
issues racist. You're doing a
lesser form of it here with
"Clearly, nakedly something that
anyone with a decent moral
compass..." That makes a moral
issue out of something that's
clearly within the realm of
politics in a healthy society
(where to direct tax dollars).
It's perfectly reasonable to think
that I'd rather have slightly
higher dollars spent on Medicaid
funding than do that research
study. If you agree with that,
then it's clearly a political
question, not a moral one.
|
> > > > > > datsci_est_2015
Sounds quite reasonable when you
put it that way, but unfortunately
the entire domain of such research
has been demonized and turned into
a right wing meme, essentially
disqualifying any such research
from being funded at all. "DEI" is
a rhetorical hammer and any
funding for research that involves
equity is the porcelain that the
hammer is smashing.So it's no
longer about whether we allocate
funding to this or that, as a
political compromise, it's about
the culture war.
|
> > > > > > hardbass
It seems like those leftists have
largely been proven correct.
|
> > > > > > jibal
Of course it's propaganda--the
product of moneyed interests, as
he said. It's ignorant,
irrational, and dishonest to deny
it. (And the rest of your comment
here, and comments here, are in
the same basket.) The statement
was "Incredible propaganda job
moneyed interests have performed
in order to convince the right
wing that any research that asks
probing questions about equity
automatically implies anyone white
and conservative is "racist"" and
then you immediately respond with
exactly that claim.It's not those
on the left who are the baddies.
The statement here was about those
on the right using "DEI" to
institutionalize bigotry. And it
was a response to blatant lies
like "label half the country
racist".And masking immorality and
blatant bigotry as "politics" is a
common "conservative" ploy. Of
course "the effects of nuclear
weapons testing on the lands and
livelihoods of indigenous peoples"
is prima facie a moral
issue--nakedly, as he
said.Elsewhere you claim that>
Richard Muller have come in to
disprove the mainstream
consensusIt seems that there's
nothing you won't lie about.But
enough wallowing in the mud with
____ ... I won't respond further.
|
> > > > > runako
Agree that asking for grants requires
compromises.However, this
administration has made clear that
there are no compromises to be had for
projects that seek forbidden
knowledge. Climate, for example, is
not a subject that is permitted at
all. It's not about how one asks, it's
that we do not want to know the output
of the research.
|
> > > > > > Windchaser
Alternatively, they've already
decided that everyone who works in
the field is biased, or close
enough, that it's better to just
burn it all down.And, yes, this
overlooks the times when
conservative scientists like
Richard Muller have come in to
disprove the mainstream consensus
and then come up with the exact
same results, but... that's not
considered important when they
have so many other "examples" of
"liberal science".I know that
ultimately, there isn't really any
space for 'conservative science'
in climate. Either they do bad
science, so it's not really
'science', or they do good science
and come up with the same
'liberal' answers. But I don't
think conservatives have figured
this out yet; they're still
convinced that good science will
prove them right.
|
> > > > > robocat
> SDoH= Social Determinants of Health
|
> > > > > jibal
"If you're an irrational racist
sociopath, why should you want to fund
people who undermine your baseless
claims?"
|
> > > > khalic
lol, are you implying science is dying
because, you believe, less and less
scientists are "conservative". Do you have
any notion of how ridiculous that sounds?
|
> > > > > wins32767
I'm not implying I'm stating that if
you depending on the tax base of the
entire country to pay your bills you
need to ensure that you cultivate the
support of both parties.
|
> > > > > > Windchaser
> you need to ensure that you
cultivate the support of both
partiesI'm not sure that that's
possible. If someone is motivated
by religion or finance to believe
something that's simply not true,
and your scientific evidence
contradicts them, there's a
fundamental misalignment. They
won't support you, because the
real-world evidence contradicts
their beliefs, and you're bringing
more real-world evidence.On issues
of climate change, evolution, age
of the universe, etc., the hard
science just straight up disagrees
with conservatives. I don't see a
way around that.
|
> > > > > > preg_match
But one of the parties is
explicitly anti-science. Are you
seeing the problem?The reason
there's no conservatives in
science, or startlingly little
conservatives in education as a
whole, is because they're
incompatible ideologies. It's like
asking why there aren't more polar
bears in the rain forest.
|
> > > > > > khalic
This is a fictitious scenario
invented to make the conservatives
the victims... when they are the
ones in power, killing the
science. No amount of mental
gymnastics trumps that fact
|
> > > > > > wins32767
How about a reframe:
When they are the ones in power,
cutting funding to organizations
that support their political
opponents and goals they don't
support.I'll be the first to say
this is a bad thing AND that
they're going about it stupidly.
But I'm also saying that this is
an inevitable consequence of the
failure to manage your
stakeholders over a period of
decades.
|
> > > > > > khalic
Better framing indeed, I agree.
Not sure this was a predictable
outcome though, the sheer
stupidity of defunding existing
science projects based on politics
is mind boggling. How do you hedge
against capricious self sabotage
like this?
|
> > > > > > jibal
Read this guy's other comments,
like> Richard Muller have come in
to disprove the mainstream
consensusHe's a dishonest con
through and through.
|
> > > > > tbrownaw
If you know only your own position,
you know little of even that.
|
> > > > LadyCailin
I'm not convinced academia purged itself,
at least not in any way that they should
be ashamed of. Reality has a liberal bias,
and my extremely conservative uncle at one
point mentioned how he didn't want his
kids to go to college, because college
turns kids atheist. Actually, learning
things opens your mind, and so the
standard conservative positions come off
looking pretty stupid after critical
examination, so conservativism (i.e.
dogmatism) and learning are inherently at
odds. Falsifying or omitting things just
to suit the feelings of conservatives is
wrong, even if the alternative is to
"purge them" from academia by making their
stupidity unwelcome.
|
> > > > > wins32767
Do you have any idea how smug this
sounds to about half the people that
need to pay for the scientific
funding? I'm not a Republican, but
even I'm turned off by this sort of
attitude.
|
> > > > > > hardbass
It's easy to offend them without
even trying. Every day they find
something absolutely absurd to be
inflamed about. We should know
when it's beyond sanity to try to
pander to some persons.
|
> > > > > > amanaplanacanal
Wouldn't want to research anything
that might make someone question
their beliefs. What you are saying
doesn't sound like any kind of
science I'm familiar with.
|
> > > > > > jibal
The guy claims that Richard Muller
disproved the mainstream consensus
of climate science. I don't think
his claim of not being a
Republican is credible.
|
> > > > > > LadyCailin
I stopped caring about hurting the
feelings of conservatives when
they started intentionally fucking
over everyone just to make
liberals mad. Catering to their
stupidity is called appeasement,
and just ask the Europeans how
that works out.
|
> > > > > > titzer
When someone is skeptical and
wants ask questions, it's
reasonable to hear them out. When
said person fails to listen or
accept basic facts (that allow
establishing a shared reality), we
should turn the volume down on
them.If Tommy, age 7, asks if the
Earth is round, teachers should
explain how we know the Earth is
round and give Tommy a couple of
ways to check. When Tommy comes
back at age 27, having done no
experiments, convinced the Earth
is flat, and alleging a massive
global conspiracy to hide that
fact for domination, we should
ignore Tommy. If Tommy persists,
the amount of embarrassment and
shame they face should be
proportional to how loud they are.
|
> > > > > > hardbass
Conservatives are the ones calling
for fuck the feelings, why are
they themselves so emotionally
weak and always making an
emotional ruckus at everything.
|
> > helterskelter
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they
thought it was a DEI thing.
|
> > > iAMkenough
If the 20-something's at DOGE proved anything
last year, the keyword "black" associated with
grant funding probably put the research on a
list of DEI cuts.
|
> > > > apical_dendrite
This is getting downvoted, but it's
actually true. DOGE repeatedly used naive
keyword searches to kill funding for
projects that often had nothing to do with
DEI.> Among them was a $349,000 grant to
replace an aging HVAC system at the High
Point Museum in North Carolina. "Improving
HVAC systems enhances preservation
conditions for collections, aligning with
the goal of providing greater access to
diverse audiences," the ChatGPT DEI
rationale stated.> Another federal
employee, whose primary job function is
managing relations with private
equity-held businesses, was placed on
administrative leave "pursuant to the
President's executive order on DEIA," per
a dismissal memo reviewed by BI.
https://www.businessinsider.com/doge-wrong
ly-flagged-jobs-pr...
|
> > > > ryandrake
I don't know why you're getting downvoted.
This is exactly the kind of expertise and
competence we have in the Administration
right now. It is totally believable that
they would do a substring search for
"black" and "trans" and defund black hole
research and transistor science.
|
> > > > > tombert
It is a little impressive how actively
bad they are at this.I haven't had
that much respect for Elon since he
called the cave diver a pedophile, but
something I didn't realize until the
2025 administration started is how
lazy everyone involved with it is. As
far as I can tell, no one in that
administration has, at any point in
their life, ever examined any of their
own opinions or actions, or looked up
the "why" of any of the programs that
they declared as "wasteful".That or
they're just idiots. Tough to say.
|
> > > > > m-ee
They have said in depositions that
they just did substring searches or
fed lists to chat gpt, it's not even a
question.
|
> > GolfPopper
The real "partisan" question is, "What can the GOP
leadership and their owners loot without immediate
negative consequences for themselves?"
|
okeuro49
> But arbitrary cancellations and delayed disbursements
are unprecedented. And justifying them on the basis of
politics-prohibiting, for instance, grants that include
language referencing diversity, equity and inclusion
(DEI)-was unheard of until now.It is odd how removal of
DEI is framed as being political, when it is the other way
round. DEI schemes were deeply political, and depended on
who can claim to be the biggest victim.
|
> enragedcacti
I don't think requiring prospective hires to write a
DEI statement is equally as political as illegally
cancelling already funded and approved research into
e.g. racial disparities in maternal mortality, or
health equity gaps for rural Americans (yes, it's DEI
even if it's for predominantly white people).
|
> > dmd
It's not just research into things like that. As I
mentioned elsewhere, one of the researchers in my
department had a study canceled because something
they did "engendered a robust hemodynamic
response". Someone replied saying theirs was
canceled for "mineral inclusion". There are
thousands of things like this. It's not about DEI,
it's about getting rid of science, because science
is at odds with their view of the US.
|
> > fastball
Legality is orthogonal to politicality.
|
> 0xbadcafebee
It's not odd. If the institution of it is political,
the removal of it is therefore also political.It is
not, however, based on who can claim to be the biggest
victim. It is based on a simple statistical analysis
of demographics.
|
> > noosphr
In a previous project I ended up talking with a
scientist who couldn't shut up about how she was
1/4th Indigenous and how many grants that could
open for our collaboration.If I wanted racial
purity in my collaborators it get a time machine
to 1930s Germany. That someone was doing this in
2022 was extremely off-putting. That they were
getting government support because of it makes the
me not care much about the fact the system is
being burned down today.
|
> > > customguy
> If I wanted racial purity in my
collaborators it get a time machine to 1930s
Germany.If you knew more about it than some
memes about racism, you'd know that the
nihilism, this thin-skinned "at least we'll
take them with us" sentiment you just
expressed, was at the heart of it. But they
had a lost war and the 1920s to be bitter
about, the treaty of Versailles, not someone
who "couldn't shut up" about something. The
mind boggles.
|
> > > > ieatcandlewax
You're right nihilism is a never a
productive reaction to have, but I find it
a bit tone deaf to say it now after the
past 10 years of ever increasing partisan
capture of science agencies.If being
apathetic to a broken system makes you
Nazi, what would be a better approach to
the problem outlined by the person you
were responding to? How would you keep
political agents out of science
institutions?
|
> > > > > customguy
Someone once talked to a scientist who
wouldn't shut up about how they could
use their, let's call it privilege at
this point, to help them both (use it
for their collaboration), and now they
are happy with seeing all science
burn? Because that situation was like
the 1930s Germany? Yeah no. And US
science isn't getting less political
with Christian fundamentalists and
kleptocrats dismantling as much as
they can as quickly as they can, so
complaining about the previous
situation more than the current one
might be projection.
|
> > > jubilanti
Imagine that your people had the land you'd
been living on for countless generations
invaded, taken from them after a bloody
campaign, where the survivors were forced into
poverty in concentration camps, where they
could not leave, where many women had their
fallopian tubes tied without even their
knowledge, where children were beaten for
speaking their language, where they were
intentionally and deliberately kept in
structural poverty for generations, and other
horrors.What kinds of damages would you think
your descendants should be owed? If you heard
that the restitution given was for those who
managed to climb into the ivory tower of
academia are now first in line for research
grants... Sure, that's a trade.There are many
scholarships, grants, services, and
opportunities for descendants of Holocaust
victims who had their property and lives taken
from them. Do you support that? What's the
difference?> That they were getting government
support because of it makes the me not care
much about the fact the system is being burned
down today.I just want you to sit with that
sentence for a minute. You'd rather have no
publicly funded science, you'd rather have the
entire enterprise collapse, just because of
some people are getting research funding
because they are descendants of genocide
victims? Seriously?
|
> > > > noosphr
>Imagine that your people had the land
you'd been living on for countless
generations invaded, taken from them after
a bloody campaign, where the survivors
were forced into poverty in concentration
camps, where they could not leave, where
many women had their fallopian tubes tied
without even their knowledge, where
children were beaten for speaking their
language, where they were intentionally
and deliberately kept in structural
poverty for generations, and other
horrors.Yes, it's terrible what the
English did in Ireland.
|
> > > > haberman
I think you can easily turn this around:
scientists who are only willing to do
science if it involves preferential
treatment, DEI statements, and other
practices that half of the country
despises are saying that it's better to do
no science at all than to set those
divisive practices aside and just do
science.Proponents of these policies want
to have it both ways; they're at one
moment just this small thing that nobody
should be bothered by, but in the next
moment a nonnegotiable bedrock principle
that they are unwilling to stop doing,
even under threat of losing funding.
|
> > > > > skulk
This group of people you're describing
("scientists who are only willing to
do science if it involves preferential
treatment") is simply not real. The
idea that academics would cling to DEI
statements or refuse funding is beyond
laughable, and could only be dreamt up
by someone who has never experienced
academia.
|
> > > > > > haberman
It happened directly at least
once:
https://www.science.org/content/ar
ticle/u-s-college-first-de...It
happens indirectly all the time.
As of 2025, despite all the
funding cuts, the AAAS is still
publishing its yearly DEI report,
now rebranded as an "Inclusivity
for Excellence Report", but
containing all of the same stuff:
an effort to collect and publish
as much demographic data as
possible, and a stated goal of
getting all the numbers to go in
the "right" direction. These
practices are too ingrained and
sacrosanct at this point to let a
mere funding crisis throw them off
course.
|
> > > > > > skulk
Williams College wasn't content to
blindly follow a vague directive
restricting their speech. They
already received very few grants
as the article said. You better
bet most scientists at big
institutions were tripping over
themselves to police their own
speech to ensure they aren't
uttering any of the new forbidden
words like "engender."> These
practices are too ingrained and
sacrosanct at this point to let a
mere funding crisis throw them off
course.Yes, some people have
egalitarian principles. As much as
you think there is a conspiracy
against your group to keep you
down it's just not true.
|
> > > > > > haberman
The French, who have "égalité"
in their national motto, prohibit
the kind of demographic tracking
and reporting that US Progressives
consider core to their project. Do
you think the French don't care
about egalitarianism? No, they
just have a different concept of
what that means. Just like many
Americans.Academics could broaden
their horizons and consider the
possibility that there are
multiple perspectives on
egalitarianism, and that the
public that funds them is quite
split on the issue. If Science is
really the priority, it should be
easy to stay neutral on unrelated
contentious social issues. But I
guess it's more fun to preach and
condescend to people who disagree,
and then complain when those
people don't want to fund your
enterprise anymore.
|
> > > > > > skulk
Your motte-and-bailey
argumentation here is extremely
tiring, and I'd encourage you to
take a step back and look at
what's being discussed
here.https://www.brennancenter.org
/our-work/research-reports/cost...
US science is in chaos not because
of pushback against this evil
"demographic tracking and
reporting", but rather an
extremely capricious attitude
towards any research from the
administration. This isn't about
the practices of the universities
choosing who gets a grant. The
administration is terminating
random grants based on keywords
that they find in the abstracts
even if the keyword has nothing to
do with evil DEI.> If Science is
really the priority, it should be
easy to stay neutral on unrelated
contentious social issues.Science
is being used to study these
contentious social issues. That's
the kind of science that's getting
suppressed, _but that's not even
the issue here_
|
> > > > goldfishgold
No I don't support any kind of assistance
for the descendants of Holocaust victims.
Yes, of course the Holocaust was a vile
disgrace, but it was almost a century ago.
At some point you have to draw a line
under it and allow the descendants - who
in many cases never knew the relevant
ancestors - to live their own lives.
|
> > > > > SV_BubbleTime
Up until Trump2, Ivy League schools
were gaming the system to limit Asian
students... but how could they, the
Japanese-American internment camps
weren't that long ago.
|
> > _heimdall
The statistical analysis is step one, but those
stats are (or were?) used as proxies for
quantifying a persons victimhood. I dont actually
think "victim" is quite the right word here, but
the OP used it and it fits well enough.
|
> Catloafdev
Framing what's happening as simply 'removal of DEI' is
horrifically out of touch with reality.
|
> > quantummagic
Correct. But not understanding how DEI drove a
huge wedge into science (or at least its politics
and institutions), and is actually a large
component of the underlying rift, is just as
horrifically out of touch with reality. The
current crisis can be largely laid at the feet of
the people who prioritized DEI over everything
else, with utter contempt for opposing opinions.
The current crisis is just the backlash.
|
> breakyerself
Just having keywords associated with DEI could get a
project defunded. Thee government isn't just defunding
liberal projects. Look at the millions being thrown
out on ocean monitoring because the Trump admin thinks
global warming isnt a problem if you don't monitor it.
|
> danny_codes
I don't think DEI was political until Trump made it a
dog whistle for white nationalism? Insofar as Trump
platformed white nationalists, I suppose it's
political, but you are confusing the causality.
|
> titzer
> DEI schemes were deeply political, and depended on
who can claim to be the biggest victim.Disagree. This
is just defaulting to "it makes one of the political
poles angry, it must be political".DEI isn't about
achieving or gaining political power for "the left",
but anti-DEI is absolutely about gaining political
power for the right-wing reactionaries.DEI didn't just
come from nowhere. Data supports the idea that groups
with more diversity and representation are not only
more fair, but also more efficient and robust. The
point of DEI was to make our systems stronger by
helping everyone participate. That means addressing
structural problems that discourage and even prevent
many people from participating. DEI didn't just come
about because they wanted to see fewer white faces and
more brown faces. It's actually based on Science!There
are just too many right-wing reactionaries, and as a
society we humor them too much! Everything feels
threatening to right wing reactionaries. They're
afraid of vaccines for fuck sake! They believe that
"DEI = hating white people". Learning new things
threatens the cultivated ignorance that keeps their
political masters able to control them, which is
ironic because the little house cats think they they
are lions.
|
embedding-shape
> When the shutdown ended in mid-November, Reynolds's team
had just two weeks to get on budget. It failed. The plan
the group submitted would cost too much and take too long.
"Our last hope was that NASA headquarters would understand
what had gone on and give us some leeway," Reynolds says.
NASA did not. After nearly 10 years of work, AXIS was
dead.If the scientists haven't left science behind after
an experience like this, probably nothing will. What an
absolute kick in the nuts to have a decade of your life
erased because someone did a keyword search for science
projects to stop, in the name of saving money, while at
the same time wasting even more money on other things.I
think I should feel angry, but I just feel sad for all the
humans involved here, I hope they manage to come out with
a more positive perspective than I'm able to here.
|
> oersted
Oh scientists are leaving science in droves,
certainly. Often becoming sales-people for deep-tech
companies, which is rather sad.This is the most recent
shock, and probably the biggest one, but academia has
been becoming toxically metrics-driven, authoritative
and political for a long while, weirdly more than in
industry.It has nothing to do with scientists of
course, they are the last ones that would want this.
It's a never-ending squeeze from the top.And also the
fact that so many students were pushed to study pure
sciences, which is great in principle, but some of
these degrees only prepare you to stay in university
as an academic, and there's only so much budget for
that.
|
> > nextos
True, also very precarious and unstable. It is now
common not to get a long-term contract until your
40s.Given the massive pay gap with industry and
scarce funding, it's natural lots of innovation
has shifted to industrial labs.
|
> > > oersted
In EU there are laws that force universities
to give researchers a permanent contract after
a couple years. The result? Everyone gets
fired every couple of years. In certain
fields, this implies changing country every
couple of years.Not that the university is
paying much anyway, often the opposite: the
researcher gets their own grant and they are
forced to pay a cut to the host university, or
to their group leader. It can get rather
feudal.
|
> > > > jltsiren
The actual law is more that you need an
objective reason for a fixed-term contract
in any sector. A genuine project (such as
the completion of a PhD) is an acceptable
reason. The availability of funding is
not.In practice, it has been accepted that
postdocs can have fixed-term contracts,
because it's a trainee position.
Similarly, an assistant professor can have
a fixed-term contract before tenure. Both
of those are in some sense against the
spirit of the law, but the legal system
tends to favor consistency and reasonable
outcomes over strict adherence to the
law.European universities have more
postdocs than American universities,
because there is more research funding
available. But then there are fewer
faculty positions for those postdocs, as
the universities themselves are not so
well funded. That creates a constant
stream of researchers looking for other
opportunities, which American universities
used to take advantage of.Universities
tend to operate strictly on a budget,
because they only have limited
discretionary funds. While a business may
choose to buy things it believes it needs,
because it expects to make money in the
future, a university generally needs to
secure the funding first. If you are a
researcher, you don't get an office, a
laptop, and some lab space simply because
you need them to do your job. You may get
them if an external funder explicitly
chooses to pay for them.I had some
visibility into the funding of Finnish
universities during the transition to the
current system. Under the old system, core
funding was more generous. Each university
allocated the resources between various
units and individual professors, which
involved a lot of politics. If someone was
particularly successful in obtaining
external funding, they might not have
enough office/lab space for all the people
they could otherwise hire.The funding
model gradually changed to address issues
like that. Departments had to pay internal
rents to the university for the facilities
they used. The government started
allocating some of the core funds
according the success each university had
in obtaining external funding. And at some
point, they moved most of that money from
core funding to grant overheads.
|
> > > > > oersted
As far as I remember, from when I was
closer to academia, in NL postdocs had
to be offered a permanent contract
after 3 temporary contracts, with a
maximum of 1 year per temporary
contract, or something like that. I
believe this wasn't exclusive to
postdocs and it is a general law for
most professions.In recent years in
Spain they aggressively decreased that
threshold to the point where most
employees need to have permanent
contracts. Interestingly it has led to
significant growth because, among
others factors, it has increased
consumer confidence, and it has been a
much smaller burden on companies than
expected.Perhaps the term "permanent"
contract is confusing to some. It's
not in the sense of a functionary or
tenure, where you virtually have a job
for life unless there are extreme
circumstances. A permanent contract is
an indefinite contract, one without a
specific end, where firing you needs
to be properly justified, but you can
be fired, certainly.
|
> dmd
One of the researchers in my department had a study
canceled because something they did "engendered a
robust hemodynamic response".Whoops, keyword match.
|
> > beej71
We had one that mentioned "mineral inclusion".
|
> gignico
We all should feel sad and angry. That said, this was
never about saving money. This is about keeping
scientists under tight control by the government, in
order to suppress research on climate change and other
controversial topics. If the government can cut your
grant at any time without notice or appeal you will
think twice before publishing results that go against
their ideology, or even before publishing a criticism
on Twitter. This is true especially if you are not
tenured, which accounts for the majority of the
academic world.
|
> > IsTom
I just want to vent: climate change is not a
controversial topic, it's an inconvenient topic
for people making a lot of money.
|