A Trump-era purge of military scientists at a legendary think tank(reuters.com)
reuters.com
A Trump-era purge of military scientists at a legendary think tank
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-science/
66 comments
Apparently Reuters did not view it as their job to persuade you with overwhelming evidence that the group is important. It is their job to convey to you who thinks the group is important and who doesn't.
JASON has a wikipedia page, google exists, etc. etc.
JASON has a wikipedia page, google exists, etc. etc.
> It is their job to convey to you who thinks the group is important and who doesn't.
Preferably without sensationalized headlines like "Trump-era purge".
Preferably without sensationalized headlines like "Trump-era purge".
> sensationalized headlines like "Trump-era purge"
A headline is absolutely the least important part of an article, but in this case it's descriptive and appropriate so I'm not sure what the problem is. This is the Trump era of the US executive branch and he owns these decisions, whether you like them or not. This is not controversial.
A headline is absolutely the least important part of an article, but in this case it's descriptive and appropriate so I'm not sure what the problem is. This is the Trump era of the US executive branch and he owns these decisions, whether you like them or not. This is not controversial.
> A headline is absolutely the least important part of an article
On the contrary, its a one sentence summary of an article. If combined with humor, it sticks better. If its too long, it will stick less. If its too sensationalist readers will feel deceived afterwards (and they'll express it). To be fair, it is difficult to make a good headline. Not everyone's cut for it. A good journalist can, but journalism is a race to the bottom and it is hard to compete with masses who lower the standards (seemingly for free thanks to advertisements).
On the contrary, its a one sentence summary of an article. If combined with humor, it sticks better. If its too long, it will stick less. If its too sensationalist readers will feel deceived afterwards (and they'll express it). To be fair, it is difficult to make a good headline. Not everyone's cut for it. A good journalist can, but journalism is a race to the bottom and it is hard to compete with masses who lower the standards (seemingly for free thanks to advertisements).
They've probably done something useful in the past, but muh seekrits!
One thing is certain though; virtually every new president since George H.W. Bush, they've rolled out this very same article. "You're ruining my MITRE sinecure," basically. Obviously, it's not happened yet, and the actual substance of the events described is probably well short of the apocalypse which I must have read at least a dozen times in the last 25 years.
It's a tribute to the Jason dudes they have decent PR. They may even have done something useful once upon a time. The crap they do now is... doubtful. Mostly because almost all academics outside of something like chemistry seem to be engaged in doubtful work.
One thing is certain though; virtually every new president since George H.W. Bush, they've rolled out this very same article. "You're ruining my MITRE sinecure," basically. Obviously, it's not happened yet, and the actual substance of the events described is probably well short of the apocalypse which I must have read at least a dozen times in the last 25 years.
It's a tribute to the Jason dudes they have decent PR. They may even have done something useful once upon a time. The crap they do now is... doubtful. Mostly because almost all academics outside of something like chemistry seem to be engaged in doubtful work.
One of the things pointed out that they identified when certain plans (eg. missile defense system) was not useful, and also that the sound heard during the 'sonic attack' were crickets.
Right, but they're hardly a single point of failure with regard to internal oversight of missile defense systems; that alone is a multiple $Bn per year endeavor with several competing bureaucracies analyzing weak points and areas to improve.
The cricket thing is just a hypothesis; the article itself says that, "No definitive cause of the illnesses has been determined".
I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just kind of skeptical.
The cricket thing is just a hypothesis; the article itself says that, "No definitive cause of the illnesses has been determined".
I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just kind of skeptical.
They're not a single point of failure, they're one of a myriad of important analysis of weak points and areas to improve. Note that in the article the scientists are not defining the illness, merely were able to identify the source of the sound.
I'm mostly skeptical at the skepticism. Why wouldn't one want to retain world class researching talent to be queried at a moment's notice regarding anything that could possibly threaten the country?
I'm mostly skeptical at the skepticism. Why wouldn't one want to retain world class researching talent to be queried at a moment's notice regarding anything that could possibly threaten the country?
Why would a retainer be something we should put tax dollars toward? Why not pay them when they are needed, instead of paying them for who they are?
Reminds me of Nixon trying to get rid of the Tea Tasting Board.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/13/archives/nixon-drops-plan...
Reminds me of Nixon trying to get rid of the Tea Tasting Board.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/05/13/archives/nixon-drops-plan...
They are paid for when they're needed. They've been scheduled for 15 studies.
I'm sure top scientists working on stuff for the military are just filling public research journals with all the work they are doing.
And you don't think the people in charge of keeping nukes safe saying they are needed to keep the nukes safe justifies their position?
And you don't think the people in charge of keeping nukes safe saying they are needed to keep the nukes safe justifies their position?
How are missile defense systems not useful? The most obvious example of a useful missile defense system that comes to mind is the Iron Dome Defense System.
Strategic missile defence systems are destabilizing; game theory argues that if the other side builds such a defence your best bet is to attack before it's completed; failing that you need to build up your armory to a size where it can overwhelm the projected defense. This is why the US and UUSR signed a treaty in '72 specifically banning them (except for one city each; the US didn't even bother to deploy its).
Wasn’t this abrogated?
In the article, the example was a "space-based missile defense system".
... oh ... yeah, that's fucked.
If giving a bunch of academics vacations in La Jolla is so useful to the bottom line, maybe Google, Apple, or Walmart should buy their services instead.
> In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science'. The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. (2.9.30).
> The Party employs science and technology to curtail human freedom and privacy, and to control human behavior.
> The Party employs science and technology to curtail human freedom and privacy, and to control human behavior.
Am I the only one that was shocked to find out that we have around a thousand independent advisory committees on the payroll? As someone who is a citizen of the US and who is not a Republican or a Trump supporter, I think we do need to scale back funding in a large number of areas of the government given the huge amount of national debt we have taken on. Having around a thousand advisory committees seems ridiculous. Maybe the Jason committee should have been spared, maybe not, but I can't claim to be upset that we are trying to cut back.
That's one advisory committee per 327,000 people in one of the most (technologically) advanced nations on the planet. You could more plausibly argue that we need more advisory committees, but really, the number is not the issue.
None of this is about saving money. If it were we would be addressing the biggest sources of waste first. These committees are often the only means by which people with competency in the relevant area get put in the room when decisions are made. Cutting back on them is like skipping birth control to save money.
If you're "not a Republican or a Trump supporter", you maybe should be glad that independent advisory boards exist. Someone has to say "your plans conflict with reality" (when that's accurate), and it seems unlikely to be the people Trump surrounds himself with...
Perhaps the roughly $700B defense budget could make up those cuts?
:)
:)
I would be very happy indeed if that ever became a thing. In my opinion, we should have just enough of a military to be able to protect ourselves and stop policing the rest of the world, or whatever it is we think we're doing.
Ya'll are not aware of the level of anti-intellectualism and anti-expertise in the Soviet Union, are you? Well, it was so epic and catastrophic - there is a new show about it, called Chernobyl.
To be accurate, there WAS science, engineering, and expertise, but it had to neatly align with the Party Line.
To be accurate, there WAS science, engineering, and expertise, but it had to neatly align with the Party Line.
To be accurate, there WAS science, engineering, and expertise, but it had to neatly align with the Party Line.
This should be taken as a warning sign by all intellectuals and everyone with a love of knowledge. When the political animal becomes so arrogant, they're deluded into thinking they can dictate reality, instead of being subject to it, society has wandered into a very dangerous kind of epistemic breakdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Look for this in particular, when politics has become "single party" and there is absolutely no room for dissent. Look out for mechanisms and practices of suppressing and intimidating dissent which do not have due process, or which are corruptions of due process mechanisms.
Look out for the situation where you or someone must "hold their tongue." If you must hold your tongue, you are being suppressed by people with unchecked power approaching the epistemic breakdown. If you feel others should "hold their tongue," especially if you despise them, then you are in danger of approaching the epistemic breakdown.
http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-t...
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
This should be taken as a warning sign by all intellectuals and everyone with a love of knowledge. When the political animal becomes so arrogant, they're deluded into thinking they can dictate reality, instead of being subject to it, society has wandered into a very dangerous kind of epistemic breakdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Look for this in particular, when politics has become "single party" and there is absolutely no room for dissent. Look out for mechanisms and practices of suppressing and intimidating dissent which do not have due process, or which are corruptions of due process mechanisms.
Look out for the situation where you or someone must "hold their tongue." If you must hold your tongue, you are being suppressed by people with unchecked power approaching the epistemic breakdown. If you feel others should "hold their tongue," especially if you despise them, then you are in danger of approaching the epistemic breakdown.
http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis-the-t...
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
>Look out for the situation where you or someone must "hold their tongue." If you must hold your tongue, you are being suppressed by people with unchecked power approaching the epistemic breakdown. If you feel others should "hold their tongue," especially if you despise them, then you are in danger of approaching the epistemic breakdown.
Holding one's tongue is a social tool that makes meaningful collaboration between dissimilar parties possible. Having the space to speak freely is undeniably a liberty worth defending. But it's important to remain conscious of the difference between being silenced by force and being gracious by custom.
It can be difficult to distinguish between the two when the stakes are high or tempers run hot, but that's when it matters most. The freedom to speak openly is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
Holding one's tongue is a social tool that makes meaningful collaboration between dissimilar parties possible. Having the space to speak freely is undeniably a liberty worth defending. But it's important to remain conscious of the difference between being silenced by force and being gracious by custom.
It can be difficult to distinguish between the two when the stakes are high or tempers run hot, but that's when it matters most. The freedom to speak openly is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
Holding one's tongue is a social tool that makes meaningful collaboration between dissimilar parties possible. Having the space to speak freely is undeniably a liberty worth defending. But it's important to remain conscious of the difference between being silenced by force and being gracious by custom.
This is a good point. What I meant by Must hold your tongue is that all of "the space to speak freely" is being systematically denied to wholesale groups of people. (In particular, if one's response to speech being systematically denied to wholesale groups of people, is to turn around and systematically deny speech to wholesale groups of people, one is part of the problem.)
The freedom to speak openly is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
True. As in many things, there is balance. A problem with accumulating too much power, is that it enables one to create such imbalances, while insulating one from the information the imbalance is happening.
This is a good point. What I meant by Must hold your tongue is that all of "the space to speak freely" is being systematically denied to wholesale groups of people. (In particular, if one's response to speech being systematically denied to wholesale groups of people, is to turn around and systematically deny speech to wholesale groups of people, one is part of the problem.)
The freedom to speak openly is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.
True. As in many things, there is balance. A problem with accumulating too much power, is that it enables one to create such imbalances, while insulating one from the information the imbalance is happening.
The USSR also glorified scientists to a degree that is unheard of in the US. While people here grew up with Martin Luther King Ave, the USSR kids grew up with Yuri Gagarin street.
Furthermore, phds were available to people besides wealthy kids or those looking to commit economic suicide.
There were problems with the USSR, but education definitely surpassed US education in the 80s. Furthermore, what Kennedy tried to do with his fitness program was commonplace in the USSR.
Furthermore, phds were available to people besides wealthy kids or those looking to commit economic suicide.
There were problems with the USSR, but education definitely surpassed US education in the 80s. Furthermore, what Kennedy tried to do with his fitness program was commonplace in the USSR.
The education was good, sometimes too good. I look in horror at my 5th grade math class notes. I think it's pre-calculus.
Here is the thing, you get this stellar education, then you are out in the real world, and, poof.
Here is the thing, you get this stellar education, then you are out in the real world, and, poof.
I lived for a while in Milwaukee, WI which sports a James Lovell Street. I was curious and I looked up Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong. Armstrong has streets named after him in California and Nevada, I didn't see one for Aldrin.
Buzz Aldrin is a prominent conservative, and has campaigned over the decades and given speeches at CPAC and the SOTU. Politics also influences how city governments name streets.
Garagin was a cosmonaut rather than a scientist. He had a standard military education and took correspondence engineering courses.
Correct. It was just an example that came to mind. There are plenty of streets, statues, etc dedicated to scientists however.
Kind of interesting that the ARPANET was justified around military grounds and OGAS around economic grounds.
I guess OGAS spiritually lives on the internet now with ad tracking and payment networks where a few companies have detailed views of economic activity.
I guess OGAS spiritually lives on the internet now with ad tracking and payment networks where a few companies have detailed views of economic activity.
It's pretty telling that its the reason why ARPANET succeeded and OGAS failed. But interesting to know that the idea of a decentralized network to manage production demand was already taking place - i always thought if the Soviets had something like that they would have lasted much longer.
ARPNET didn't turn into what it is today because of military usage, and OGAS didn't fail because of it's resource management use. They lived or died because of money. The United States and Soviet Union both had to build all of the precursors and fabric that these systems would run on (telephone lines, computers, etc), which both did. The next logical step was for computers to co-opt existing national infrastructure and create a national network of computers. The Soviet Union faltering elsewhere is why OGAS didn't develop and ARPANET did.
My point was if it wasn't for military usage, ARPANET wouldn't have existed at all. Clearly that was the barrier, since OGAS died for that reason. If they spun it from a military angle, OGAS might have evolved similarly to ARPANET
If you're not planning to engage in nuclear war with modern national superpowers, maybe you don't need a board of the top physicists on call for information about weapons research.
The intent has never been to engage in nuclear war. That doesn't mean you don't make contingency plans. Nothing has changed in that regard.
In the article, the board of top phycisists are also queried about waves and the safe storage of nuclear material. They also were the guys who state that the 'sonic attacks' in cuba were crickets.
That is an inaccurate characterization of the finding. They found that the sound that they heard was crickets. They did not determine what caused the injuries or illnesses. The linked article was careful with its wording.
But we are planning exactly that. We still have hundreds of nuclear-tipped missiles ready to fly at a moment’s notice.
If you're going to spend billions on maintaining a nuclear arsenal it makes sense to me to spend a few million to ensure it's well maintained.
Maybe you should get rid of the nukes before you dump the guys who are experts on them?
I'd feel the same way about a space-based defense system but apparently it's full-steam ahead on that particular money sink.
Putting the Trump name on this probably got them more eyeballs, but it seems a bit of a pity. The story is genuinely interesting without branding another article with the president's label. It seems unlikely he is especially involved in this. Mentioning him unnecessarily politicises the story; the man stirs up strong feelings.
The decision was made and is being defended by a direct appointee of the President:
> On March 28, Trump appointee Michael Griffin – the Pentagon’s chief technology officer – unexpectedly moved to terminate the group.
It's also done in accordance with an executive order signed by the President himself:
> A June executive order signed by Trump requires all federal agencies to slash a third of their independent advisory committees by September 30, with the goal of ultimately reducing the total number of such committees to no more than 350 from about 1,000 now.
There is nothing frivolous in mentioning the person responsible for a policy under discussion. While it may sometimes seem like there is too much Trump news, most journalists not directly covering the White House actually are fairly hesitant to invoke his name, because it invariably dooms any discussion. But in a case such as this, it would be journalistic malpractice not to show the line of causality.
> On March 28, Trump appointee Michael Griffin – the Pentagon’s chief technology officer – unexpectedly moved to terminate the group.
It's also done in accordance with an executive order signed by the President himself:
> A June executive order signed by Trump requires all federal agencies to slash a third of their independent advisory committees by September 30, with the goal of ultimately reducing the total number of such committees to no more than 350 from about 1,000 now.
There is nothing frivolous in mentioning the person responsible for a policy under discussion. While it may sometimes seem like there is too much Trump news, most journalists not directly covering the White House actually are fairly hesitant to invoke his name, because it invariably dooms any discussion. But in a case such as this, it would be journalistic malpractice not to show the line of causality.
[deleted]
A political appointee appointed by Trump cut the committee. It's not politicizing, its just fact.
The article mentions this:
> A June executive order signed by Trump requires all federal agencies to slash a third of their independent advisory committees by September 30, with the goal of ultimately reducing the total number of such committees to no more than 350 from about 1,000 now.
That indicates that Trump is directly responsible for these events. How is that politicizing?
> A June executive order signed by Trump requires all federal agencies to slash a third of their independent advisory committees by September 30, with the goal of ultimately reducing the total number of such committees to no more than 350 from about 1,000 now.
That indicates that Trump is directly responsible for these events. How is that politicizing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessmen...
This is like when Gingrich killed OTA to make room for lobbyists and consultants to run roughshod. Guarantee this is going to lead to a fat contract for someone
This is like when Gingrich killed OTA to make room for lobbyists and consultants to run roughshod. Guarantee this is going to lead to a fat contract for someone
> According to Science magazine, "some Republican lawmakers came to view [the OTA] as duplicative, wasteful, and biased against their party."
Presented without comment.
Presented without comment.
"biased against their party" is both depressing and sad given the low standing of scientific knowledge in the modern GOP.
Perhaps a space-based missile defense system?
[deleted]
There's an argument that the Jasons have outlived their usefulness. They're mostly physicists, who were more important in the atomic age. One of the books about them indicates that they need more bio and social science expertise. That was written in the terrorism age.
That's not why Trump got rid of them, of course.
That's not why Trump got rid of them, of course.
That's an argument for them being expanded or modified.
AFAICT, this is a team of distinguished scientists that is kept on the government payroll so that the US has the best scientific minds available for national security issues. Sounds great in theory, but when a clearly sympathetic article's chosen examples of the good work the group does include nuggets such as, "In the 1960s, the Jasons invented a type of sensor that could detect enemy guerrillas in Vietnam and communicate their location to U.S. bombers", I dunno, I'm kind of skeptical. I mean, maybe that sensor had a subsequent use case for the space program or something, who knows.