[elevation]

Oddly, the actual threat to knowledge generation? Institutions that absorb societal-scale science budgets while perpetuating systemic fraud.

Institutional administrators confiscate 50, 60, 70% of every research grant.

Institutions demand published work even when results do not warrant it, and demote professors honest enough to document a null result.

The peer review system then rubber stamps papers with no actual review or reproduction. Journals blacklist professors who withhold endorsement.

The result? 90%+ of academic science is fraud. But which 90%? We need to drastically reform this system.

[monkeyelite]

This. It’s not useful to capture the smartest people if we deploy them to spend 50% of their time promoting projects for grants.

[searine]

This is anti-intellectual propaganda.

Seriously, 90%? None of what you said is happening at anywhere near that scale. Touch grass.

[monkeyelite]

Professors have told me it doesn’t matter which administration is in - they just need to rebrand their project to meet funding requirements. Isn’t that a scary thought? We have no visibility and they are skilled enough to transform into any form.

[eli_gottlieb]

No, it's not a scary thought that physicists and chemists don't care whether a Republican or Democrat is in office.

[monkeyelite]

It’s scary that:

1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people. 3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

[eli_gottlieb]

Points (1) and (3) appear to contradict each-other, AFAICT. Surely if you made researchers "waste" less time on the grant process, that would reduce the public's ability to supervise and intervene on what get's funded in an informed way? Much to most of the grant procedures researchers have to follow consist precisely in generating metrics, documentation, and other material meant to demonstrate to a skeptical public where the money is going.

You can trust professionals to do their jobs as they see fit and write them a check, or you can make them "waste" time proving to you they're doing the job you want them to do. You can't have low-trust and low-effort grant administration.

[searine]

You have no idea what you are talking about, and yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.

>1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants.

There are all kinds of scientists, some do the research, some do the writing, some do the grantsmanship. Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. It takes understanding an communication skills to convince a panel of peer-experts that your ideas are good enough to give millions of dollars to.

> 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people.

There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step, including opportunity for public commentary.

Just because you personally don't know it exists, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

>3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented. If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did and how they spent that money.

Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.

[monkeyelite]

> Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.

I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.

> Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part.

Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work!

And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic job placement and promotion.

> There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step,

Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.

> If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did

Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.

Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career. Unless I attend a specialized conference I won’t hear about the latter, except in a form crafted for public reception. That’s the one that gets grants.

> Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented.

There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.

> yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.

Name calling.

[knappa]

> Institutional administrators confiscate 50, 60, 70% of every research grant.

Not even the Trump admin is alleging levels of indirect costs that high. See e.g.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-0...

"Yet the average indirect cost rate reported by NIH has averaged between 27% and 28% over time."

and a lot of that is simply because nobody wants to do the detailed accounting for things like: lab electricity usage, janitorial services, misc supplies.

> The result? 90%+ of academic science is fraud.

This is dramatic nonsense; a simple made up number.

[elevation]

> Not even the Trump admin is alleging levels of indirect costs that high.

The 70% "indirect cost" number had latched into my brain. I was willing to concede this point, but it looks like 50, 60, 70% are accurate as of 2025 [0].

While there exist institutions with only 30% indirect cost, every single not-especially-prestigious university in my region are retaining 60% or more.

[0] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48540

> As of May 2025, indirect cost reimbursements for [institutions of higher education (IHE)] are typically determined by an indirect cost rate that is pre-negotiated with the federal government and varies by IHE—ranging from 30% to 70%.

[gammarator]

[citation needed]