HN

Need help?
<- Back
Proposed new US funding rules: We can cancel any grant at any time

Proposed new US funding rules: We can cancel any grant at any time

mhalle

Comments (116)

  • gwerbin
    More of the same at this point.If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled.The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they are just cracking down on things that they see as subjectively bad, so it's fine. And there's an element of truth in that: so much of American policy for a long time has been subject to agency interpretation and judicial review, and there was always room for political maneuvering and corruption in the system. Where the truth becomes a lie is the omission that this is the systematic ramping up from something that happens occasionally in a mostly-functioning system, to something that happens constantly and is systematically designed to facilitate corruption and politicization.
  • tempodox
    If you want to stay a scientist, you have to emigrate. The art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.
  • ChrisLTD
    It’s sad to watch my country commit suicide. Not only will my compatriots be poorer for it, but the rest of the world will be too.
  • cineticdaffodil
    I still think we should allow for grant hunting. If you can disprove a paper, you get the grant money attached to it. Make it a economic worthy endavour to destroy bad science.
  • jleyank
    If you don't have stable-duration grants, if you can't publish, if you can't present there's no reason for PhD's, p-docs or junior faculty to become involved. Going to do wonders for extra-US facilities and groups.
  • ninjagoo
    Maybe we need to strengthen civic/philanthropic infrastructure around Science and Technology to reduce reliance on government funding cycles.Science and Educational purposes are valid 501(c)(3) purposes. A donation to a 501(c)(3) that funds open-source scientific software, public STEM education, basic research, science grants, or public-interest tech research can be deductible.Up to 60% of Adjusted Gross Income can be tax-deductible as charitable contributions to a qualified 501(c)(3) with itemization, depending on the contribution type.This would create a non-partisan defined/dedicated non-profit funding layer with serious governance that will benefit all sides. Might be possible to go global.This would need serious structure: independent board, conflict-of-interest rules, grant review, public reporting, no private benefit, and probably fiscal sponsorship first.Maybe this deserves a separate Ask HN to avoid derailing this thread: would people here actually support or help design a 501(c)(3)-style vehicle for public-benefit science and technology funding?
  • 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/
  • softwaredoug
    The thing about this is it’s incredibly easy for a denied institution to claim legal standing to challenge the governments scientific funding decisions. The institutions that get funds (universities) are well resourced. Society in general seems gradually less tolerant of trying to appease Trump - so they will likely sue instead of appease.So they’ll be sued. The theories will be tested and we’ll see exactly where the line is (eventually). And probably somewhere uncomfortable, given SCOTUS.There are legitimate ways agency political appointees can set funding priorities. Like this year we’ll focus on Alzheimer’s. But of course, we should take the least charitable reading of this - that it’ll likely be used for shenanigans. Punish enemies. Award cronies. Go after junk science, etc.
  • intended
    At a US conference last year, people thronged a session that talked about studying in Korea. This would be an empty room at, pretty much, any point in the past several decades.The amount of capability that America is burning is impressive. I suspect that people outside of academia are not as alarmed, since its not part of daily life.However it matters the same way that a drug discovery today is life saving 10 years down the line, after its gone through all the processes to go to market.
  • ck2
    if the Dems don't also take back the Senate, this country is doneit will take longer than this decade, maybe even next, to restore the brain loss and faith in secure jobs for researchbasically this country will just become a highway of non-stop warehouses, alternating ICE prisons vs "AI" datacentersscience, medicine, all research and development just gone to other countries
  • ChrisArchitect
  • jmclnx
    I am sure China is loving what the US/Trump is doing. Already China is about to take the lead in medical research and I think it is ahead in renewable energy.With this, I guess the US will end up as a third rate country much quicker.
  • wileydragonfly
    Remember when the director of NIH, an unlicensed MD, lied to congress two months ago and swore the award letters were coming? I do.
  • swordlucky666
    [dead]
  • academia101
    [dead]
  • amazingamazing
    Hasn’t the government always had final say on grants?Also it really is sad to see “Hacker” News be “World News”. More Zig and less White House, please. Redditors have infiltrated. The rate of political posts have increased dramatically since 2016 election.
  • abjectai_42
    How is this different than adding DEI requirements, the inability to study schedule 1 drugs, or the restrictions placed under the Dickey-Wicker amendment?Federal grants have always been subject to politics.
  • appreciatorBus
    Could oversight like this lead to politics overriding science?Sure, of course.But to even ask the question presumes that politics isn’t already overriding science within the academy, just from a different direction.