As a scientist (physics, not polar ice), scientists alone are too few to advocate for science alone -- we literally cannot do it.
If you want scientific research as you know it to persist in the United States, please take a moment to help support for science in Congress go viral in your community.
Empirical science is non-partisan. It is good and helpful to know what's true.
If your friends are devout readers of the bible, point 'em toward Philippians 4:8. While I'm not religious, that passage has resonated for me my entire life.
Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
> NSF has been opaque about these plans—intentionally so, Wellner believes. “They are purposely not putting anything in writing,” she says. And the planned cancellation is leaving in limbo the scientists who have cruises planned for the Palmer this Antarctic summer, which begins in December.
Incompetence (we didn't think about this out loud), or malice (we didn't want to leave a paper trail)?
Consider the video "Staffing an Office" where Jeff Small, a former advisor in the Department of the Interior says “When you work for the federal government everything you put in an email, text, or note is FOIAable and releasable to the American people. At interior, we had a ton of in person meetings which allowed us to speak a little more freely about the topics of the day.”
Or the video "Advancing the President’s Agenda" where former OPM director Donald Devine says "You need to keep your agenda pretty close. You got to be careful who you tell it to because if you run it through a normal process…it’s going to be in the paper tomorrow..."
It's pretty clear that the architects of our current executive branch want to keep their objectives out of the public record and out of the press. So let's go with malice.
You'll find worse quotes from the House interview [1] of Fauci's advisor David Morens. Ever since I watched a recording of his testimony I've been more willing to give incompetence "passes" to bad behavior in Republican admins.
And also keeping plausible deniability for the people at the top. They never told anyone to do anything, they decided to do this themselves. The third reich was full of this as well.
>And also keeping plausible deniability for the people at the top. They never told anyone to do anything, they decided to do this themselves. The third reich was full of this as well.
Dude, every single government ever in the history of humanity works this way. The appointed administrators of ancient rome were scheming up ways to serve their benefactors without leaving a tablet trail that their benefactors opponents could complain about. When I worked for a podunk state department of a well run solidly blue state 15yr ago we did this. There were meetings with no agenda where they'd verbally go over what the new boss's (appointed positions at top of department, not the governor himself) inclinations were on areas of policy relevant to the department and there would be discussion about how to align to that. And this wasn't people who reported to the boss, these were line level workers and middle managers. This wasn't coming from the top down. This was the bottom simply knowing what was good for it.
And just to be clear, just because it's always like this doesn't mean you shouldn't hate it and hate them for doing it.
This happens all through government now. As soon as any small public body starts getting FOIA requests they stop putting anything off-color into an email and take it to phone calls and private meetings.
Hey, I'm collecting money for my expedition to see what's beyond the ice wall. I hope this will be more successful than the last expedition I sent, this time I'm sending them with a starlink terminal.
Someone ELI5: Why is the Trump administration defunding scientific research? Is there a bigger picture we're not seeing, or is it 8D chess he's playing ?
This administration and its influencers have some strong opinions about significantly shrinking the size and role of government, and eliminating activities they don’t believe the government should be engaged in.
Now that he's president, here come the reprisals. Zero out NSF's funding, shut down NPR, end the COVID era break on student loan enforcement, withdraw grants from Harvard.
If your research is funded by taxpayer dollars, you're a public servant and you should welcome public accountability. You should accept that explaining the public benefit of what you do is part of your job, and accept the possibility that the public won't see eye-to-eye with regard to that benefit.
The fundamental problem is that scientists stopped thinking of themselves as public servants, and started thinking of themselves as lecturers whose job it is to scold the public. They stopped working to follow the evidence wherever it lead, and switched to promoting trendy ideologies. Remember during COVID how we were all supposed to isolate, until the Floyd protests started and suddenly the need for isolation disappeared?
"Three-in-four liberal faculty support mandatory diversity statements while 90% of conservative faculty and 56% of moderate faculty see them as political litmus tests."
...
"For decades, college and university faculty have identified as predominantly left-leaning (e.g., affiliating with the Democratic party, self-identifying as liberal), a skew that has become more pronounced over the past three decades.[40] For instance, in the Higher Education Research Institute’s 1990 faculty survey, 6% identified as “far left,” 16% identified as “conservative,” and 0.4% identified as “far right.” In 2020 these percentages were 12%, 10%, and 0.2%, respectively.[41] College students are also predominantly left-leaning, though the rate is closer to 2:1 left vs. right, compared to 6:1 among faculty.[42]"
..."significant portions of faculty say that they would discriminate against colleagues with different ideological views in professional settings (e.g., during anonymous peer-review) or during day-to-day social interactions.[43]"
Academics successfully hacked away the branch that they themselves were standing on. Large fractions of the US electorate no longer believe that the research these academics do is a good-faith attempt to advance their interests as voters and taxpayers. And so they're not interested in funding it. Fair play if you ask me. If academia wants funding, it should do deep reforms in order to re-earn the trust of voters.
You are not automatically a public servant if you are funded by taxes. In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people. E.g. handle who gets a tax cut, go to jail, or other things that we need to out source to people that serve our interests in powerful ways. It is important to differentiate them from people that just do a thing for money.
Further more saying things like "It is your fault that you are in front of my fist" is not productive. Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.
If my tax dollars fund you in any way, you are a public servant. Someone who doesn't meet that definition should not be definition be receiving public funds.
I do not expect people who reiceve my money to be my servants. I pay for services and if they are bad I see to it that they become better, or just shut up. I am sure every weapons manufacturer should be counted as a public servant, but it really makes no sense because the work they do has not meaning for me.
Now if they try to assert power over me. That is a different. That is why you need to make lobbying laws more effective.
>In my definition that only happens when you start making decision that affect other people.
Not a hard line. Scientific papers often comment on the best public policies. It matters a lot to taxpayers if institutional characteristics mean that these papers will inevitably recommend left-wing policies.
Why would right-wingers want their tax dollars going to institutes that will just recommend left-wing policies and call it "science", without the sort of rigorous debate that true science requires?
>Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.
If scholars are following the evidence where it leads, it should be easy to give examples of them recommending right-wing policies. How many recent examples can you give of this?
Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."
He talks about the need for utter honesty, leaning over backwards.
"For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."
When people call themselves "scientists", yet neglect these principles, they aren't doing science. They're cloaking their ideology in the guise of science.
Just because it happens in a university building, and calls itself "science", doesn't make it true science. Any more than the fact that Scientology has "science" in the name makes it true science.
"Trust the Science" and "Nullius in verba" (motto of the Royal Society) have practically opposite meanings. One of them is actual science; the other is a cargo cult which grants itself unearned credibility through use of the term "science".
You have to put what you are saying into context. Science is by definition conservative. It does not mean all of science is conservative or even just politicaly so.
The point is antiscience, and the right wingers need an enemy and they are turning to antiscience to do it. It is funny since you are citing FIRE I am pretty sure they will say similar stuff, I am guessing with words like "chilling effect" to describe parts the politics.
My view on the whole "it is woke" is that it is first of all an attempt of trying to construct a boogey man instead of having am honest debate. Most of what is called woke is actually just opinions. I have always seen the "it is woke" crowd as an attack on all of academia, that discussion can never be diverse enough to be anything that an out right attack.
Now we are slashing vital science projects that has nothing to do with woke, and people are arguing "science" should be blamed because someone was woke.
I am sure we think the same on many of these issues, but "Trust the science" is more or less what the Royal society said. In the end it does not matter if you are a scientist we as a people trust stories and legends more, creating monsters from thin air is a powerfull tool if you want people to trust you.
Yes because he’s throwing the baby out with the bath water, being completely myopic about the value add to society and what it takes to make America competitive.
Of course he’ll be dead before the real multi-generational consequences take effect.
> What possible justification could you have for this
The base wants to see spending cuts in exchange for the tax cuts the rich are getting, and thinks science (especially climate science!) is a blunt tool by which liberals berate and control them.
There is no market test for “fundamental” research. So when an avenue of research secures taxpayer funding it exists into perpetuity, and as papers are published and requests for additional funding are made, it tends to grow like a tumor over the decades, getting more PhDs to be matriculated in the labs that began the avenue and grow ever more forever. Very rarely is an avenue of research closed off once the trifecta of university research labs + journals, PhDs who are minted to continue the research, and grants secured and grown.
A lot of the hand wringing by academics themselves are unfocused but circling the root cause, which is this. I would prefer corporations fund research but directed through the university system. The patents and gains are then funneled through the corporations that funded it, rather than the academics and universities with zero return to the taxpayers other than abstract “society gains” pablum, when the academics and universities truly gain all the profit.
When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner, and alternatives to the current vogue will be funded quicker. You can see a real-life example (of failure) in Alzheimer’s research which was hamstrung by decades of political control of research labs and taxpayer grants that refused to fund alternatives to the “mainstream” theories which set back society and the disease.
> When corporations that actually have a market test and profit motive are funding the research, avenues that are unlikely to succeed will be cut off sooner...
It's hard to see how your suggestion would work for fundamental advances in technology. For example, backpropagation took decades to move from an idea to industrial use. [0] It was also "invented" multiple times.
I understood the value of crypto well before the vast majority of people and made a significant amount of money. While that isn’t an argument in favor of my opinions on other subjects, the pejorative of “crypto bro” is certainly inaccurate considering I noticed a massive profit opportunity well before most others, and instead should signal that I have heterodox opinions that might be accurate before the small-c conservatives (i.e. academics writ large) accept the truths
Whether proponents of government directed Science, agree or disagree, your comment presents a well reasoned argument. At the moment it is the most substantive comment on the page. Moreover, it is a direct, good faith response to the parent commenter's question. Yet for all of this, I see that the comment has been downvoted into grey. At the time of posting, no substantive rebuttals have been offered.
This typifies the quality of discourse around defunding of "The Science" at HN.
it's a shit argument. Fundamental research funded by the government led to the Googles and OpenAIs of today. If industry funds research, the profits stay in the hands of the same people. When government funds research, new billionaires are minted down the line. if you like billionaires (I don't), you'd fund government research, not hope that the existing billionaires think it's in their interest. We wouldn't know about CFCs and the ozone if CFCs companies funded the research - we'd be burned to a crisp.
You have a lack of imagination. The research lead to Google and OpenAI, but you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding. Furthermore there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding, other than esoteric “America benefits when the research happens in America”
Maybe I should move to lalaland too. It sounds nice there.
Back in reality, American economic and military supremacy was founded on Government funding fundamental research and industry using it to create unprecedented growth in wealth and quality of life for mot people in the form of jobs. China has figured it out, and they are forging ahead. America is heading back to the middle ages.
> you can’t imagine such research could have happened without taxpayer funding
In a vacuum, maybe. But if China is subsidising basic research, it doesn’t make sense for private enterprise to do it here. That technology base shifts to where its cost of capital is lowest.
This is practically how America ascended—putting massive public resources behind emerging science and technology before the fractured powers of Europe gathered the conviction to.
It doesn’t even take imagination to see the fruits of this philosophy. There are countries whose governments don’t spend on R&D. Their citizens are poor and unfree, their governments less than sovereign on the international stage.
> there is no return to the taxpayer for the funding
The return comes from taxing the growth the R&D enables. Silicon Valley has more than returned the military funding that kickstarted it.
I can understand disagreeing but it is funny that someone asked for a justification and then downvoted someone providing one, without even knowing if the person actually even endorses that line of thought. Liberalism truly is dead.