[xtiansimon]

> “The document would also ban…block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.”

This is not just picking which ideas the government supports. This sounds like it’s taking all the “fun” out of having grant funding.

Sure, that’s a flip remark, but doesn’t this have a similar sense of arguments against other government funded programs?

~SNAP food assistance is raising food prices~ [1] or ~SNAP food assistance is my tax dollars going towards anyone who says they’re hungry.~ [2]

And don’t forget to mention the replication crisis.

~Public funded grants let scientists go to parties and publish junk science.~

The cynical would argue it’s proof the scientific community is filled with charlatans milking a system that can’t police itself.

[1]: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYNZT43R705/

[2]: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DY2k2MNxf97/

[lmeyerov]

Useless russian-troll-style argument:

- With no workers working, no worker fraud problem, sure. If you cut core scientific processes, politicize science, and destablize paycheck predictability enough to chase everyone good out of science, then yes any small amount of waste is also caught in the cuts.

- This seems to increase what you call bad "fun": Increases abuse of tax funding being corruptly given to projects advocated by political appointees despite rejection by scientific peer review. Vicious feedback loop.

[xtiansimon]

> "Useless russian-troll-style argument"

Surprise! I'm just a middle-age American reading HN with his coffee trying to wrap my head around the topic. I don't think this remark helps anyone understand your argument. Doth protest too much.

I'm wondering if you're focused on the "approved" science, and missing the idea this corruption is riding on the back of even a "small amount of waste", and an overall rejection of scientific activities in the face of the replication crisis. All part of the schism of your facts and our facts insanity.

[lmeyerov]

R1 work generally doesn't have a replication crisis, and generally incrementalism is the bigger issue there, which is in turn tied to penny pinching

The bigger issue is failure to significantly increase r&d funding, vs last decade+ shrinkages and Trump-era eating of the young, and focuses like you now propose suggest a continuation of such economy-inhibiting thinking. Also, note how your post was goalpost moving. This in turn is classic trolling with asymmetric effort, so I don't see your response in good faith.

[xtiansimon]

> “This in turn is classic trolling with asymmetric effort, so I don't see your response in good faith.”

I feel like I commented on someone’s marriage. Peace.