[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).

[amanaplanacanal]

The way science is supposed to work, it doesn't matter who is doing the study. Anybody can read the resulting paper and see whether the conclusions are supported by the data. That's what science is. Saying they don't trust science is a pretty heavy indictment that they have lost their way. What are they proposing to replace science with, vibes?

[jibal]

You're portraying Republicans as fundamentally intellectually dishonest people.

I'm not one to argue.

[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?".

[ordersofmag]

You have misunderstood what structural racism is. It is not about the majority of people being racist. Is about the systems being constructed in ways that lead to racist outcomes. You can have a society with zero racist individuals and if they continue to enact the racist systems (perhaps created by racist folks long dead) you'll have structural racism. I don't disagree with the idea that the mis-understanding you have is widespread though, and would certainly be a cause for folks not being comfortable with the idea (as they have mis-understood it).

[kaitai]

It's so disappointing that you have made the mistake of thinking that those two possibilities listed cover the entire set of possibilities.

The Parable of the Polygons is a cute case study that shows that it is possible, in a mathematical sense, to prefer diversity and yet end up segregated: https://ncase.me/polygons/

The whole point of studying institutional and structural racism is that no one needs to be racist per se to have racially discriminatory outcomes. Perhaps a good analogy is the higher mortality rates among left-handed people. We no longer persecute them and drive them out of society or beat them for their sin, and yet, they die earlier due to structural factors.

I agree with you that "people don't like other people believing they-en-masse discriminate." And that's why science in the US is f*(&ed, because somehow everyone takes intellectual inquiry as some sort of personal affront or verdict on individual virtue, and that's the one thing the American cannot abide, the thought that someone else is judging them and finding them wanting.

[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.

[datsci_est_2015]

Sounds quite reasonable when you put it that way, but unfortunately the entire domain of such research has been demonized and turned into a right wing meme, essentially disqualifying any such research from being funded at all. “DEI” is a rhetorical hammer and any funding for research that involves equity is the porcelain that the hammer is smashing.

So it’s no longer about whether we allocate funding to this or that, as a political compromise, it’s about the culture war.

[hardbass]

It seems like those leftists have largely been proven correct.

[jibal]

Of course it's propaganda--the product of moneyed interests, as he said. It's ignorant, irrational, and dishonest to deny it. (And the rest of your comment here, and comments here, are in the same basket.) The statement was "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”" and then you immediately respond with exactly that claim.

It's not those on the left who are the baddies. The statement here was about those on the right using "DEI" to institutionalize bigotry. And it was a response to blatant lies like "label half the country racist".

And masking immorality and blatant bigotry as "politics" is a common "conservative" ploy. Of course "the effects of nuclear weapons testing on the lands and livelihoods of indigenous peoples" is prima facie a moral issue--nakedly, as he said.

Elsewhere you claim that

> Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus

It seems that there's nothing you won't lie about.

But enough wallowing in the mud with ____ ... I won't respond further.

[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?

[jibal]

Read this guy's other comments, like

> Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus

He's a dishonest con through and through.

[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.