Comment by oh_my_goodness
9 hours ago
Please understand that the goal of these policies is to weaken scientific research in the US. The people who push this stuff acknowledge openly that they oppose science, experts, and accurate information. This isn't a misunderstanding or a fumble.
My job depends on NIH continuing to function, but it is not immediately clear that this particular decision follows other worrying trends discussed here previously. Removing K-awards for clinical trials (but not regular, cheaper study formats) might simply be a recognition that clinical trials are too expensive for the K-format and conducting underpowered clinical trials does not help anyone much.
might simply be is exactly right, very unlikely… and knowing what you know and have seen since Jan of 2025 you know how slim that “might” is
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?
A body of independent subject matter experts who command public respect is anathema to authoritarian governments. It's why authoritarian takeovers frequently start by targeting major universities.
Except we both know they weren't really that independent though... This was on HN a few days ago https://archive.is/Ayf4R
To make it easier to push "alternative truths".
I think the plan might be to reinstate science in some form after they have grabbed full control of the country.
"Alternative facts" vs "other ways of knowing". Great choices that America has. Objective science is off the table for both camps.
> but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive
It's not "a general anti-science movement", it's about tight control, everything else is unimportant.
> directly hurt industries like pharma/etc
Not a problem if tight control is in place.
Punishing apparent ideological enemies is a long standing mechanism for fascists and dictators - and scientists in the US qualify. It's an attempt to make people fear standing against them.
Destroying sources of truth is a long standing goal for those who want people to act against their own interest, and scientists are a source of truth. It's shrinking the pie so that the republican leadership can capture a much bigger slice of it.
> wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run
Less competitive for tertiary industries like tech, pharma, etc. More competitive for lower-level industries like mining, resource extraction, low-tech and labor-intensive manufacturing, etc. The Administration represents the latter economic sectors. They want more people in factories and fewer people in offices.
I know this isn't HN type of a topic or a comment, but looking at US from outside, the theme looks to be explicitly destroying US hegemony and meritocracy...
What I feel to be a common denominator for Trump, Thiel/Musk, and MAGA types, is that they are the people who "otherwise wouldn't have been chosen" for one reason or another. I've had stupidly engaged in a pointless argument with MAGA type people on some anonymous forum, and what I slowly realized is that a lot of them fail to hide having an okay picture of the actual reality when absolutely cornered and pushed hard, with the caveat that the chances for them getting any win whatsoever by embracing some alternative, conspiracy, false narratives is above zero, whereas the same for not doing so is at very most zero. There have been news reports of Bill Gates and Elon Musk both having engaged in quite some reprehensible acts on some island, but Gates would still always come first on headlines whenever they would be in a photo together. This would be contrast to how media universally reports Musk throwing the Nazi salute(which is the worst I've seen in any media that unironically makes me wonder how a real neo nazi would pause, exhale, say "you know," and shut up in German on camera reviewing it), which do yield a bunch of single name headlines. They would not have a chance of getting dopamine hit standing straight on both feet and looking straight ahead uttering all the correct words. Destroying everything that gets in the way to end this their "suffering" seem like the goal to me.
I mean, there's a very succinct and less nice word for that group of people that begins with the letter in the middle of the logo under the crown for the Dutch royal airline, but that word doesn't feel like it captures the verticality of this phenomenon.
It was never a meritocracy. That's a lie to keep the workers in line.
Narcissist doesn't start with L...
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
For example, the Security of War recently had a well produced video saying we're going to do anyway with vaccine mandates for the military.
>Hegseth announced in late April that he was making the annual flu vaccine voluntary for service members "effective immediately." In a video posted to social media, Hegseth said requiring people to get vaccinated was "overly broad and not rational."
>By early May, all military departments had formally requested exemptions that allow them to keep requiring flu vaccinations for certain service members, and those exemptions were granted in early June, according to the congressional staffer. The exemptions typically apply to vulnerable populations like people who live in communal environments, healthcare workers and other categories, the staffer said
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-flu-vaccine-recruits-h...
See that pesky reality thing.
Trying to understand conservative thought is to go into a bizarre twilight zone where vaccines cause autism, do more harm than good, and at the same time our " adversaries" deliberately created illnesses which can be prevented by vaccines.
Then again, maybe the illnesses are designed to get more people vaccinated, in order to spread autism.
Behind it all.
Big Train of course.
They're deliberately weakening the U.S. Treason.
... who are unfortunately backed by a large part of the US population who have elected them on exactly that promise, for various reasons. From fear of vaccines to having various other nations freeride on US research.
That so many people think like this is the underlying problem.
The public overwhelmingly supports NIH-funded research. https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/n...
The issue, I think, is a large number of people don't realize the NIH or NIS exists or know what they do.
I think most people support them once the realize exactly what they are doing. How could you not when "They research treatments for diseases" is basically all they do.
[flagged]
> The Great Cause diverts all the money to itself.
Be very specific about exactly what you mean here, with links to reputable sources. You're making extraordinarily strong accusations; vagueness does not suffice to convince.
4 replies →
Please understand that so many high IQ tech and science people support this, they voted and decided.
I'm surrounded by scientists, in my family, at my day job, and in my community, as I live in the shadow of a major research university. Support for the current administration in recent elections has fallen somewhere between slim and none. In fact I can't think of another identifiable group of people who have been more unanimous in their opposition.
On the other hand I can't defined "tech" people, but maybe someone else can. I don't lump "tech and science" together as a single group.
Disclosure: Scientist.
Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? I’m not asking out of anger I genuinely don’t get it. Culture war issues like, idk, people becoming more brown by default in America, or a trans teenager participating in a game, they’re… they don’t seem as important as ensuring well funded science??
> Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding?
The list is long. First and foremost, it's never a good idea to forget that wherever there's intelligence there's always also stupidity. Then it's generally good advice not to confuse intelligence for wisdom. And between this and very long lists of cognitive biases, there's always the good old "Fuck ya, got mine!" Rule of Acquisition to remember. Et cetera.
1 reply →
current administration is guided by the looniest of the loons Claremont Institute, who truly believe that any dollar not spent on border defense or offensive military capability is wasted.
They continue to support him, you have lots of republicans here they see him as at best a lesser evil.
I am sure I just naive, I guess we can hope all the international bad will is going away with Trump.
> Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding?
Because a high IQ and a science degree does not mean that those people make good political decisions. A lot of political decision making is driven by ideology and identity. A lot of high IQ people may have strong mathematical and problem solving skills, but are morons in absolutely every other aspect of life.
Lots of voters didn't believe Trump would do the things he campaigned on. "I'll defund research" can be interpreted as "probably that other research, the stuff I don't like or think is useless" by some.
There are many reasons. Many high IQ people don’t want to lose their jobs and favor stricter immigration policies. They would probably vote for Democrats if Democrats weren’t so lax on immigration.
And, many of my friends who were doing PHD they used to follow dems, but are now supporting republicans after they got citizenship....
Many is a misnomer for “some.” The current administration won by a plurality, 49%, not even a majority. This was 32% of possible voters. Of people with a PhD, approximately 30% voted for Trump. Of Trump voters 1% had a PhD.
This is still many people, but only in that “many” is more than a “few.” It’s not the case that most people voted for Trump, or even most voters. Or even most phds who voted. 70% of phds who voted didn’t vote for Trump.
This is why they are facing political retribution. He is creating suffering for revenge, the national interest be damned. Trump is more interested in the credulous, easily manipulated, low knowledge and easily conned masses. Many high IQ tech and science people are them, but not most. There are probably a few that aren’t easily manipulated and are instead just self serving sociopaths buying influence and contracts - but compared to the scale of the nation, this is indeed a few.
30% doesn't seem anywhere near as low as it should be though... I'd say that qualifies as "so many".
That said I question both your and grandparents choice to look at only people who chose to vote. 68% of people who could have voted against this did not - either actively supporting it with a vote or deciding that they didn't give a fuck if it happened by not voting. Every potential voter either knew or ought to have known the result of this election result...
1 reply →
They should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.
Why would you bring up fraud in the midst of science research in the US being burned to the ground?
Fraud is not the reason it is happening. Even the people who are making the cuts in this case have clarified the purported reason and it has nothing to do with fraud.
The fraud is the point with this administration.
Who has time to talk about billions in emoluments and pumping+dumping the American Economy to insider trade war news when we are subject to such calamitous fraud as a wet-behind-the-ears PhD getting overly enthusiastic in their grant proposal?
There is a fixed (decreasing) budget for research.
What should be the balance between repeating things that have already been done, and expanding knowledge?
Frankly, this is a bit of an ignorant take.
1st, K-awards are specially meant to provide a funding path to support an early career scientist to continue in the field. Expecting that another team has already replicated the early work of a young scientist is not realistic. They are just starting out.
2nd. If you want replication, you got to fund replication. Researcher money doesn't appear out of nowhere, so make the decision, increase the science budget with a new replication budget.
3rd. Yes there is some fraud. Always has been. Is it more than before? Maybe? But unless you count paper mill journals that no serious scientist reads, it is much smaller than pop media makes it out to be.