[rufo]

To be clear, while there is _specific_ language around DEI/gender identity, the actual language of parts of this goes far, far further, and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded and what conferences scientists with government funds can go to, and disallows any government money to go towards publishing research.

[SilverElfin]

I agree there are serious concerns and drawbacks with giving appointees discretion. But the reason they did this is likely that agencies otherwise have a way of basically doing their own thing, and not complying with language. One example that isn’t about DEI. is Fauci working around restrictions on gain of function research, following the ban Obama put into place. You can have language around DEI or gender identity (or some issue on the other side) but people can find ways around it.

[delichon]

> and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded

I approve of this. The people who make the funding decisions should be politically accountable. If you have a mental model of unappointed civil servants as detached, neutral, non-political entities, I can understand why you wouldn't. But I see them as just people, and I don't know anybody like that. I'd like the folks who make bad choices with tax dollars to be votable out of office along with their boss, rather than protected from accountability by layers of boards, laws and unions.

[chillingeffect]

What's needed are democratically-agreed upon guidelines.

Yes if you suck at science, you can't get paid.

But if the subjects you study are politically inconvenient to the presently-in-charge admin, you should still be allowed to research them.