[bonsai_spool]

This is so wrong-headed of a statement that I’m actually shocked.

Do you even know how grants work?

You’re speaking about scoring designed to ensure that all Americans (any sex, poverty level, ability, creed) benefit from the use of tax payer money. This was a metric that was well understood AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED.

There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants.

Edit: less incendiary. I am just very upset with how confident people are saying things that are absolutely wrong for internet points.

[coldtea]

>There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants.

And I didn't say it was (though, such scoring has been also a powerful weapon against certain grants being granted, the scoring criteria not always interpreted and used in a politically neutral way - that was just the marketing pitch).

I spoke about how grants were already being connected to ideological pressure, both government and organisational, private sector grands: "You mispoke on that issue? No grant. You were of the wrong political perssuassion? No grant. Hurt the feelings of X group? No grant."

That pressure was on even after they were handed. That's the same kind ideological gate-keeping, just not from an official appointee, but spread out in ideologically motivated peer review, academic acceptance mechanisms, (and going into the private grants, sponsors), etc.

Research funding has never been insulated from politics. The difference is now a part of the overall approval becomes openly and transparently political.

[bonsai_spool]

>> There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants.

> And I didn't say it was (though, such scoring has been also a powerful weapon against certain grants being granted, the scoring criteria not always interpreted and used in a politically neutral way - that was just the marketing pitch).

Your own words, not mine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48340780

> That pressure was on even after they were handed

There is a scoring matrix that simply requires grantees not to ignore huge portions of the nation in their research. You didn't even need to score highly here if you scored highly elsewhere. Just not pretend that people with disabilities or other non-majority groups are deserving of attention in taxpayer-funded research.

> Research funding has never been insulated from politics. The difference is now a part of the overall approval becomes openly and transparently political.

It was always open and towards the goal of supporting America.

If you cannot understand what is different, I think there is little hope in writing to you.

I respond for the benefit of those who may not already understand how this process works and who aren't carrying water for a political party.