[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")?

[littlekey]

>What kind of person isn't curious about the puzzle of their own existence

A 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

[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.

[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).

[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? :(

[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.

[gcanyon]

> What kind of person isn't curious about the puzzle of their own existence

A 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).

[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, or

2. Structural racism is not a widespread issue

Which 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?".

[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.

[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 parties

I'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?

[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.