New executive order puts all grants under political control(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
New executive order puts all grants under political control
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/08/new-executive-order-puts-all-grants-under-political-control/
217 コメント
In software terms, there has been a vulnerability in the constitution all along, it just had not been exploited until now.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
The GOP has majority in the Supreme Court and in Congress. It's not like there's a conflict of power. There's no disagreement going on.
Indeed. Congress has tons of hard checks on executive power. (The Supreme Court, less so if it comes to enforcement and all norms are ignored)
That a Republican Congress isn't checking a Republican President isn't evidence of a lack of checks and balances.
And points to why the President is pushing so hard for Texas to gerrymander additional Republican seats into the House...
That a Republican Congress isn't checking a Republican President isn't evidence of a lack of checks and balances.
And points to why the President is pushing so hard for Texas to gerrymander additional Republican seats into the House...
As it stands currently, it's important to disambiguate the nuance that the Senate currently has enormous power while the House has very little real power.
In the current context, gerrymandering only serves to prevent impeachment at this point, but it could permit even more extreme executive-dictated, legislative rubber-stamping. In the long-term, it would stack the deck for partisan cheating.
Perhaps an amendment is needed to insist on independent, non-partisan district map commissions for every state at the federal level.
PS: I used to live in Greg Casar's ultra-salamander TX-35, but now it bypasses me down I-35 with an umbilical or tiny body from SATX to ATX. TX-15 ® an TX-28 (D) run through my ZIP Code now.
In the current context, gerrymandering only serves to prevent impeachment at this point, but it could permit even more extreme executive-dictated, legislative rubber-stamping. In the long-term, it would stack the deck for partisan cheating.
Perhaps an amendment is needed to insist on independent, non-partisan district map commissions for every state at the federal level.
PS: I used to live in Greg Casar's ultra-salamander TX-35, but now it bypasses me down I-35 with an umbilical or tiny body from SATX to ATX. TX-15 ® an TX-28 (D) run through my ZIP Code now.
IMO rather put a maximum circumference^2:area ratio so they just can't be too long and skinny.
Perhaps every state should be divided by the same, open source, simple and fair algorithm that creates deterministic centroids of people of close to the same population to maximize political competition, not minimize it.
This is something too important to be left to political hacks of some states but not others who seek to cheat at elections to favor incumbents.
This is something too important to be left to political hacks of some states but not others who seek to cheat at elections to favor incumbents.
But this gerrymander would just be one more on top of hundreds of others. The fact that "congress" agrees with the president is just another symptom of the fact that the entire system is fundamentally nonresponsive to the will of the people.
Those are all consequences of the same brokenness. All of the institutions are fundamentally broken.
It was already known by some, but not specifically, publicly elucidated or characterized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_Loophole
Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
The founding fathers didn't see the corrupting influence of political parties on the separation of powers. It's covered quite well in this SMBC related comic:
https://www.lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/101
The idea of branches of government being checks and balances against one another was never a good idea. A major problem is that the constitution doesn't actually encode any requirement that government represent the interests of the people, and gradually we've moved to a system where we're told what we're supposed to support is "the constitution" rather than any actual principles. It's all about supporting certain arbitrary procedures and content-free mechanisms.
You can’t make an unbreakable system, or, at least, it’s very difficult.
The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
Unless that "big" percentage is an outright majority of the citizenry --- not a majority of congressional districts, not a majority of electoral college votes, not a majority of the votes in the last election, but an outright majority of the actual desires of all citizens --- then the system is broken. I'm pretty sure that is not the case; it's at least debatable. But the problem is that we've bought into a system that says that doesn't matter.
All political systems, no matter how well-designed, function largely on the basis of norms. Norms are why the UK's political system is fundamentally stable; norms (like "loyal opposition") were what kept the US system stable. It is not possible to design a system that works when people don't act like they want it to.
It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law.
And that's where you are now.
But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him.
This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis.
I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring.
Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.
It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law.
And that's where you are now.
But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him.
This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis.
I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring.
Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.
If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift.
Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
> If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift.
Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
Congress puts political appointees in charge of the executive branch specifically to ensure political control.
If European leadership has even half a brain cell this could be the catalyst for enormous growth in European science. But they’d need to act fast.
The EU don't act fast. It act slow and steady, it's not perfect but it sure is better then whatever is happnening the other side of the Atlantic.
It is easier for politicians to do nothing, safer and ensures future election win. If someone would say anything serious about inviting those scientists, then his opponents would immediately capitalize on this by shouting from every paid tiktok shill, how he is taking European's jobs and inviting bad immigrants.
China enters the chat.
True, they won’t pay PhD’s €28,000 a year either.
China is a pretty good place to be a scientists in certain fields. The pay is very competitive.
Yeah, I think what’s concerning is that it wasn’t obvious I meant 28k is obscenely low.
Then why are all the Chinese origin AI Devs working in USA?
China has an enormous and rapidly growing AI space. I would argue growing much, much faster than the US space where in a lot of cases the hustle has replaced the engineering (see: OpenAI).
No, they aren't all working in the USA, and in many cases those that were are leaving the US and moving back to China.
No, they aren't all working in the USA, and in many cases those that were are leaving the US and moving back to China.
You only see the ones working in the USA and not the ones working in China. The USA still pays better than China, and has more stomach for immigration (for now…Trump is working on making that worse), but when I was working in Beijing a lot of engineers from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, were there specifically for the higher pay.
i34ubt4q2(1)
EU will not act on this unless the bill also includes provisions to support hobby horse manufacturing in eastern romania
You seem to be frustrated about Romania (which has an east but not a formal eastern region designation as in Eastern Europe - are you conflating the two?) - but can you elaborate on your frustration?
EU never manages to act under reasonable timelines, because every bill is an opportunity for some pork on the side.
perhaps you're not familiar with (budget) Earmarks (e.g. in the US Congress)— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)
But JD Vance using the military so he can have high water while Kayaking for his birthday is ok
Wtf US
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/06/jd-vance-ohi...
Wtf US
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/06/jd-vance-ohi...
How would any of his actions, if looked at objectively, differ from the actions of one who was charged with the complete destruction of the United States of America.
He doesn't want to destroy the USA. Well not quite.
He does want to fundamentally change it into an domestic empire -- a monarchical executive ruling over vassal states that have their own governments but must pay tribute.
Well... he wants it to look more like a mafia arrangement because he was jealous of those guys back when he had a mafia lawyer in the 1970s. He likes to pressure people to do him little favours in return for protection (which is literally what he was impeached for the first time). He thinks he can direct industry to do what he wants (and it looks like industry kind of agrees). It is clear he intends to meddle in state law.
They, the people around him, believe in what amounts to a unitary executive that converges on a form of monarchy. It's more or less central to the belief structure of a far-right guru, Curtis Yarvin (who is an ex tech guy and a nasty little racist dweeb):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
(He explicitly uses the word "monarch")
There are many Yarvinists in the executive branch. There are also many in the AI community, and Musk consulted Yarvin about The America Party.
Asserting control over academia is a Yarvin thing (and also a Viktor Orbán thing, because the model here is Hungary, quite deliberately, which is why e.g. Tucker Carlson and CPAC hang out there). That is what is going on here. They are injecting the executive into every part of academic life.
He does want to fundamentally change it into an domestic empire -- a monarchical executive ruling over vassal states that have their own governments but must pay tribute.
Well... he wants it to look more like a mafia arrangement because he was jealous of those guys back when he had a mafia lawyer in the 1970s. He likes to pressure people to do him little favours in return for protection (which is literally what he was impeached for the first time). He thinks he can direct industry to do what he wants (and it looks like industry kind of agrees). It is clear he intends to meddle in state law.
They, the people around him, believe in what amounts to a unitary executive that converges on a form of monarchy. It's more or less central to the belief structure of a far-right guru, Curtis Yarvin (who is an ex tech guy and a nasty little racist dweeb):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
(He explicitly uses the word "monarch")
There are many Yarvinists in the executive branch. There are also many in the AI community, and Musk consulted Yarvin about The America Party.
Asserting control over academia is a Yarvin thing (and also a Viktor Orbán thing, because the model here is Hungary, quite deliberately, which is why e.g. Tucker Carlson and CPAC hang out there). That is what is going on here. They are injecting the executive into every part of academic life.
Yes, not quite. But all that would obliterate the idea of the good ol' USA quite well: "I see a new nation ready to take its place in the world; not an empire, but a republic; and a republic of laws, not men."
This ends science in the United States.
You can't really enroll graduate students for a 5 year PHD project if their funding can be pulled at a moment's notice like this.
You can't really enroll graduate students for a 5 year PHD project if their funding can be pulled at a moment's notice like this.
This year is definitely the beginning of the end for American scientific leadership. The damage being done is incalculable.
The best and brightest simply aren't going to want to come to the U.S. for an uncertain future where they'll be harassed at the airport every trip and then defunded or deported at any time for "political" reasons (a.k.a. racism, bigotry, religion, ignorance and anti-intellectualism).
Amazingly, we're only 200 days into this administration.
We have 3 years, 5 months and 12 days left, assuming we still have free and fair elections in 2028.
For the next several years, the administration is going to continue to dismantle our country's foundations brick by brick, enabled by Congress and SCOTUS. The attack on immigrants is in full swing, but the total takeover of science, public education, universities and mass media is actually just beginning.
The best and brightest simply aren't going to want to come to the U.S. for an uncertain future where they'll be harassed at the airport every trip and then defunded or deported at any time for "political" reasons (a.k.a. racism, bigotry, religion, ignorance and anti-intellectualism).
Amazingly, we're only 200 days into this administration.
We have 3 years, 5 months and 12 days left, assuming we still have free and fair elections in 2028.
For the next several years, the administration is going to continue to dismantle our country's foundations brick by brick, enabled by Congress and SCOTUS. The attack on immigrants is in full swing, but the total takeover of science, public education, universities and mass media is actually just beginning.
> We have 3 years, 5 months and 12 days left
The midterms are in 2026. A swapped House (and/or Senate, but less likely) would drastically shift power.
The midterms are in 2026. A swapped House (and/or Senate, but less likely) would drastically shift power.
> "...would drastically shift power."
What exactly do you think will change? The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity. Unless there's a big enough swing so that impeachment and conviction is a reality, Congress will have essentially zero impact.
Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally. They are truly ecstatic with what's happened so far. The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential. If Republicans do lose the House, it'll most likely be by a small margin, and the current Congress will rush through a bunch of laws to be signed that will make the next one as useless as possible.
And even if there was in fact a huge swing allowing Congress to try and stop the White House's wrecking ball, the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
What exactly do you think will change? The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity. Unless there's a big enough swing so that impeachment and conviction is a reality, Congress will have essentially zero impact.
Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally. They are truly ecstatic with what's happened so far. The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential. If Republicans do lose the House, it'll most likely be by a small margin, and the current Congress will rush through a bunch of laws to be signed that will make the next one as useless as possible.
And even if there was in fact a huge swing allowing Congress to try and stop the White House's wrecking ball, the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
I know it's vogue to construct a view in which depression and inaction are the only logical conclusions, but that ain't our reality.
> The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity
Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
And the histrionics around this are uniquely relative to modern norms. Look up the shenanigans around Marbury v Madison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Backgroun...
Joisting for power between federal branches (and with states, historically) has been a constant in American democracy more often (most of its history) than not (1970s+).
> Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally
Yes, such is the danger of personality cults in democracies.
> The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential.
Gerrymandering has always been a finger on the scales of elections, and will continue to be, until such time as Congress puts a stop to it (though debatable they have the power). https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/
> the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
I imagine FDR's ghost is spinning in his grave, with things to say about Hoover.
> The administration is already ignoring the law with impunity
Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
And the histrionics around this are uniquely relative to modern norms. Look up the shenanigans around Marbury v Madison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Backgroun...
Joisting for power between federal branches (and with states, historically) has been a constant in American democracy more often (most of its history) than not (1970s+).
> Around 40% of the country still supports the president unconditionally
Yes, such is the danger of personality cults in democracies.
> The other 60% are being gerrymandered so their majority status is inconsequential.
Gerrymandering has always been a finger on the scales of elections, and will continue to be, until such time as Congress puts a stop to it (though debatable they have the power). https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/
> the amount of damage between now and January 2027 will be monumental and irreversible.
I imagine FDR's ghost is spinning in his grave, with things to say about Hoover.
> Can you provide an example where they've ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
How about the case where the Supreme Court told the administration to obey a lower court's order and facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US [1]? The Trump administration openly defied the Supreme Court's order for nearly 2 months (April 11 to June 6) [2][3]. Setting aside whether the "temporary" violation of a Supreme Court order has been legally resolved, the administration brought Garcia back to press (hypocritical and doubtful) human smuggling charges to justify deporting Garcia again, and a judge let Garcia stay in jail for longer otherwise necessary because the judge thought the administration would deport Garcia before he could have his trial [4].
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/11/even-the-supreme-court-s...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...
[4] https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-deportation-immigra...
How about the case where the Supreme Court told the administration to obey a lower court's order and facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return to the US [1]? The Trump administration openly defied the Supreme Court's order for nearly 2 months (April 11 to June 6) [2][3]. Setting aside whether the "temporary" violation of a Supreme Court order has been legally resolved, the administration brought Garcia back to press (hypocritical and doubtful) human smuggling charges to justify deporting Garcia again, and a judge let Garcia stay in jail for longer otherwise necessary because the judge thought the administration would deport Garcia before he could have his trial [4].
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2025/04/11/even-the-supreme-court-s...
[2] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_G...
[4] https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-deportation-immigra...
"Facilitate" was a weasel word that the Supreme Court knew would allow the administration to play as it wished, hence why it was affirmed by this Court.
If the Supreme Court had wanted to order him back immediately, it would have done so.
The facts are that this administration has skated on and just over the line with regards to lower courts, especially in matters of immigration, but has yet to ignore a directive from the Supreme Court.
If you're aware of an actual example, feel free to provide it.
If the Supreme Court had wanted to order him back immediately, it would have done so.
The facts are that this administration has skated on and just over the line with regards to lower courts, especially in matters of immigration, but has yet to ignore a directive from the Supreme Court.
If you're aware of an actual example, feel free to provide it.
I could respond in detail to each pedantic item, but you seem knowledgeable enough to know them already, so here's a summary: There's plenty of non-SCOTUS laws that have been ignored. The gerrymandering is being nationally coordinated. Comparing Trump to Hoover is farcical and you know it.
The word "histrionic" is what really got me though. We're well past the stage where anyone deeply cynical about the state of things and the foreseeable future can be accused of histrionics. And we're way beyond any previous historical analogies.
My whole point is that the damage to the country is permanent. Whether it'll eventually destroy the Union has yet to be determined.
The word "histrionic" is what really got me though. We're well past the stage where anyone deeply cynical about the state of things and the foreseeable future can be accused of histrionics. And we're way beyond any previous historical analogies.
My whole point is that the damage to the country is permanent. Whether it'll eventually destroy the Union has yet to be determined.
Histrionic: deliberately affected, overly dramatic or emotional
I.e. anyone who believes that adjectives suffice where facts fail
There are things that are not happening and things that are happening. Trying to phrase the former into the latter doesn't do anything but hasten a post-truth era.
I.e. anyone who believes that adjectives suffice where facts fail
There are things that are not happening and things that are happening. Trying to phrase the former into the latter doesn't do anything but hasten a post-truth era.
> The midterms are in 2026.
What is it they say in America? "Oh sweet, summer child?"
Honestly and seriously: look at the abuse of power and its escalation. Consider the consequences to Trump if he lets the House flip. Impeachment again and this time removal really would seem likely.
Now consider, in all detached seriousness: why would a man who tried a coup and thinks he can disappear people to El Salvador let that happen?
Now consider that he's trying to force the creation of a new census that doesn't count illegal immigrants, which is obviously about denying the democrats seats, and he's fired someone for producing numbers he doesn't like and replaced them with "all new numbers".
It's not going to be the end of his interference, right?
The midterms, if they happen, will not flip the House. If they do, he will try to delay, confuse, challenge, set them aside, produce alternative results, claim massive fraud, or interfere with their certification. If he can't stop them, he will threaten them individually until they quit. (Don't say "he can't stop the election, under the constitution"; it's a meaningless phrase now)
You're not having a normal election in 2026.
Even if I turn out to be wrong, I really wish people would start acting as if predictions like these are entirely plausible. Because they are. He's moving much faster than critics expected, and yet he's doing all the things they expected.
What is it they say in America? "Oh sweet, summer child?"
Honestly and seriously: look at the abuse of power and its escalation. Consider the consequences to Trump if he lets the House flip. Impeachment again and this time removal really would seem likely.
Now consider, in all detached seriousness: why would a man who tried a coup and thinks he can disappear people to El Salvador let that happen?
Now consider that he's trying to force the creation of a new census that doesn't count illegal immigrants, which is obviously about denying the democrats seats, and he's fired someone for producing numbers he doesn't like and replaced them with "all new numbers".
It's not going to be the end of his interference, right?
The midterms, if they happen, will not flip the House. If they do, he will try to delay, confuse, challenge, set them aside, produce alternative results, claim massive fraud, or interfere with their certification. If he can't stop them, he will threaten them individually until they quit. (Don't say "he can't stop the election, under the constitution"; it's a meaningless phrase now)
You're not having a normal election in 2026.
Even if I turn out to be wrong, I really wish people would start acting as if predictions like these are entirely plausible. Because they are. He's moving much faster than critics expected, and yet he's doing all the things they expected.
> why would a man who tried a coup and thinks he can disappear people to El Salvador let that happen?
Because he has an ego the size of a planet and cares about his legacy.
Being remembered as the president that broke democracy is not his mental narrative.
Because he has an ego the size of a planet and cares about his legacy.
Being remembered as the president that broke democracy is not his mental narrative.
Hence the push for a mid-decade census (likely illegal) and revised fascist-friendly electoral maps. Can't risk popular sovereignty overruling Nazi priorities.
Personally I'm not very confident even in the next free and fair election things will change materially. Trump is the public face but the reason he's in office and also has control of congress is because Americans voted that way. It's not very clear that if elections were held tomorrow, that the result would go any different.
But but but American Exceptionalism! Americans are the best and brightest! The rest of the world can't compete! /s
Those doing and supporting what's happening a) care only about power, b) honestly think they and America is superior, c) both and d) think this time is different assuming they are educated and know history.
Those doing and supporting what's happening a) care only about power, b) honestly think they and America is superior, c) both and d) think this time is different assuming they are educated and know history.
Whether it's real or just poor communication a lot of the country felt like the scientific institutions had been weaponized against them. Maybe the constituents of those institutions even believed either making themselves an enemy of the public or creating PR indicating they were was moral but the practical reality of public institutions is that they must have the trust of the public or they will come to an end.
Hopefully people remember this for next time.
Hopefully people remember this for next time.
> Whether it's real or just poor communication
Nah, there was nothing "poor communication" about it. It was very well done bad faith communication from bad actors. It was intentional lies. This was not a fault of communication of these institutions. They can not match the lies machine from well founded and motivated political groups. And that is about it.
Nah, there was nothing "poor communication" about it. It was very well done bad faith communication from bad actors. It was intentional lies. This was not a fault of communication of these institutions. They can not match the lies machine from well founded and motivated political groups. And that is about it.
Don't forget the resentment the religious hold toward science over things like evolution and the big bang that are inconsistent with their superstitions. There's been a concerted effort by evangelical Christianity to undermine the place of science in our society, probably because when religion loses its explanatory power over the wondrous things we see in the world people turn toward the alternatives, like evidence-based explanations.
It must be nice to be in Trumpist lala land, where it's always someone else's fault.
Trust of our institutions, scientific and other, had been deliberately destroyed by anti-intellectual political hacks over the past few decades. Some from appealing to regressive religious fundamentalism, but much just shameless ignorant grandstanding of painting the complex world as unfair. And it's mostly those same hacks who are now supporting the wanton burning of our societal institutions while continuing to whitewash it as "conservatism".
Sorry, the fault here lays entirely with the fascists - most especially with the people supporting them who should have known better.
Trust of our institutions, scientific and other, had been deliberately destroyed by anti-intellectual political hacks over the past few decades. Some from appealing to regressive religious fundamentalism, but much just shameless ignorant grandstanding of painting the complex world as unfair. And it's mostly those same hacks who are now supporting the wanton burning of our societal institutions while continuing to whitewash it as "conservatism".
Sorry, the fault here lays entirely with the fascists - most especially with the people supporting them who should have known better.
Really? Is that why Project Warp Speed was both an achievement for Trump and at the same time vaccines were produced too fast and hence unreliable? That is at the same institutions were a friend, when it fit the narrative and enemy, when it didn't fit the narrative. People who say - "Don't trust the government, they make terrible decisions" are now saying "Trust the government". What a turn around.
Hopefully people who have voted for this and defending this remember this as the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism. It's certainly not happening any time soon. Maybe decades later but these things will be remembered in the same way as Mccarthyism.
Hopefully people who have voted for this and defending this remember this as the beginning of the end of American exceptionalism. It's certainly not happening any time soon. Maybe decades later but these things will be remembered in the same way as Mccarthyism.
> beginning of the end of American exceptionalism
American exceptionalism has always been a weird delusion, I don't see that ending. USA not being a market leader in <whatever>, now that can end and it's starting to happen for sure.
American exceptionalism has always been a weird delusion, I don't see that ending. USA not being a market leader in <whatever>, now that can end and it's starting to happen for sure.
This ends USA, full stop. Not this particular executive order, but his orders in general. It's been half a year and that orange turd has completely overtaken USA legislative branch with this "economic emergency", while bobbleheads in the Congress just signed it away voluntarily. And now he is taking preliminary shots at the judicial branch, trying to eradicate judges who aren't bending the knee. All the while testing through his minions if it would be possible to tear down constitution too and remain in power permanently.
It may be that the Americans don't like what the USA has turned into and want it to end.
It looks like they're going to get their way, to everyone except the rich's detriment.
See I think part of the problem is people keep complaining about "the rich" and then propose and implement policies that go after normal middle class Americans instead. A few decades of this and you have a social norm that flat out doesn't work for normal people so they just start torching things.
Totally agree, except nobody is torching things yet. This administration's blatant attack on the middle class in favor of the rich should have people rioting.
Trump governs literally as any corrupt leader in any poor country does since ages: he feeds the people with cheap, superficial lies that they like to hear (we call it, he lets them suck a pacifier) while secretly stuffing his mates with money and power.
But that happens in unprecedented amounts in a developed and organised country, maybe soon developing...
But that happens in unprecedented amounts in a developed and organised country, maybe soon developing...
What can we do about it?
General Strike.
If everyone tomorrow just stopped working around the world, that would paint a pretty picture.
If everyone tomorrow just stopped working around the world, that would paint a pretty picture.
Strike in the Washington DC where people would not go home in the evening. Put up tents, tires, pavement and keep striking until it works. Also pick up 1 single most important item. Not Epstein, however satisfying that is to throw at MAGA their own comments. I think so called "economic emergency" which in completely unconstitutional should be such a topic and strike should continue until it is repelled. Secondary topic I think should be unconstitutional measure by the Congress, which they adopted in spring and which essentially blocks congressmen from voting on this so called "emergency". That shit how whole 2025 year is a single day, or whatever they have invented.
That is the only only way to stop dictatorship while it is still possible.
That is the only only way to stop dictatorship while it is still possible.
"If everyone just" isn't ever a real solution.
To play devil's advocate:
- science funding is controlled by the state (and thus politics) in many leading countries, especially China. Doesn't seem to hold them back
- the US pays people vastly more than other countries, and will continue to have the ability to fund expensive research more than others. Maybe it will regain the political will to do so in coming years
You're right that uncertainty is deadly to investment, and signing up for 5 years of a PhD is certainly an investment. But it's hard to see this turn into an actual brain drain, if only for lack of a better place to go.
- science funding is controlled by the state (and thus politics) in many leading countries, especially China. Doesn't seem to hold them back
- the US pays people vastly more than other countries, and will continue to have the ability to fund expensive research more than others. Maybe it will regain the political will to do so in coming years
You're right that uncertainty is deadly to investment, and signing up for 5 years of a PhD is certainly an investment. But it's hard to see this turn into an actual brain drain, if only for lack of a better place to go.
In a completely isolated bubble I’d be inclined to agree that scientific research might not do so badly, but the current set of politics completely rejects generally-accepted scientific norms.
After all, why bother doing research when the guy ultimately responsible for choosing your funding will take a sharpie to any data you collect if it looks bad?
After all, why bother doing research when the guy ultimately responsible for choosing your funding will take a sharpie to any data you collect if it looks bad?
This ends science in the United States.
Probably not. Grants were always under political control, right? This is just shifting political control from one part of a government agency to another part of the government agency.
Probably not. Grants were always under political control, right? This is just shifting political control from one part of a government agency to another part of the government agency.
> Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and "must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities."
> The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they're considered to "no longer advance agency priorities."
> The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they're considered to "no longer advance agency priorities."
The key phrase in the article is "political appointee". Previously, approval was by government employees who had expertise in the given field.
Until now, once you got a grant, you could count on it.
Now? One of your grad students says something a little too on the nose on Bsky, and your lab gets shut down.
Now? One of your grad students says something a little too on the nose on Bsky, and your lab gets shut down.
Grants were always under political control, right?
Sure. In the same vein, you have always been at war with Eurasia.
Sure. In the same vein, you have always been at war with Eurasia.
[deleted]
0xy(2)
Most of my friends got grants from industry. Relying on federal grants to build up a generation of grad students in any field seems like a recipe for disaster. This change might actually bring a higher standard of tax-payer funded research if it enables the public to have faster feedback mechanisms when research stagnates or is misaligned with the public interest.
I genuinely don't understand this. This is due to my lack of experience in University since I never went, and my experience with laboratories, since I've only ever been in one, much to the annoyance of my best friends girlfriend at the time, who was studying Chinook and their spawning behavior.
My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education. Is there not another way to fund these projects? Is there not a better way to engage students into these projects? I don't recall most students having a wide array of choices when it comes to taking on these opportunities.
Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education. Is there not another way to fund these projects? Is there not a better way to engage students into these projects? I don't recall most students having a wide array of choices when it comes to taking on these opportunities.
Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
> Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
I seriously doubt that there is any will to improve the system.
> My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education.
Grants cover a much larger part of the work at labs. Basically, a grant could be paying anything except tenured salaries and administrative costs.
I seriously doubt that there is any will to improve the system.
> My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education.
Grants cover a much larger part of the work at labs. Basically, a grant could be paying anything except tenured salaries and administrative costs.
Grants are usually for projects. Projects may include a portion for postgraduate students, but also pay a lot of other things such as running costs for a lab, travel, conference fees, etc. The costs of running, say, a biology lab are very high (lots of equipment, need to employ technicians as well).
There's a reason the Americans discovered how to make atomic weapons first and it's because their researchers were living under a less oppressive state that wasn't motivated by anti-intellectualism and dumb ideology.
While I agree in spirit on the concern about political interference in science, the Manhattan Project was actually one of the most secretive, tightly controlled government programs in US history.
In addition many scientists involved (like Oppenheimer) later faced political persecution during the McCarthy era.
American atomic research succeeded despite, or perhaps because of, intense state control and funding
In addition many scientists involved (like Oppenheimer) later faced political persecution during the McCarthy era.
American atomic research succeeded despite, or perhaps because of, intense state control and funding
The "raw material" of the Manhattan Project was a flourishing community of researchers, including many European exiles; "secretive, tightly controlled" management is simply the only reasonable way to run such a military program.
Consider that at the same time the Third Reich also had a nuclear weapons research program, and it went nowhere.
Consider that at the same time the Third Reich also had a nuclear weapons research program, and it went nowhere.
You can’t just look at the Manhattan project without looking at the research output that led up to it.
Well, many of the researchers would have been killed if they stayed in Germany. It kinda helps being alive when researching how to build a nuclear bomb.
And it was an international project - the British were involved too, before the Americans suddenly cut them off.
The Manhattan project was an engineering project, not so much a scientific one. It was only made possible because the science and theories behind it were discovered first.
Yeah it probably isn't the best project to highlight the sentiment, but it was well known one and immediately came to mind in a period that had the contrasting factor.
I don't particularly think that the secrecy or control of a single group really reflects on the overall culture however. We wouldn't call phreakers authoritarian just because they weren't publishing their exploits in the newspaper or letting any new person fully into their circle.
Also the prosecution and harassment of communists/leftists and minorities in the US during that era is why I stipulated less oppressive rather than unoppressive.
I don't particularly think that the secrecy or control of a single group really reflects on the overall culture however. We wouldn't call phreakers authoritarian just because they weren't publishing their exploits in the newspaper or letting any new person fully into their circle.
Also the prosecution and harassment of communists/leftists and minorities in the US during that era is why I stipulated less oppressive rather than unoppressive.
But they didn't.
An Australian nuclear scientist working for the UK Rutherford (New Zealander) labs | Tube Alloys | MAUD program told them how to.
It took a while to convince the US scientists who were mainly interested in making big hot piles for power.
The actual building of atomic weapons (Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy) took place under a fully authoritarian ultra secret State directed militarily controlled program that cost a significant chunk of national GDP.
The example you chose appears to be both incorrect and the very opposite of whatever point you wanted to make.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant
An Australian nuclear scientist working for the UK Rutherford (New Zealander) labs | Tube Alloys | MAUD program told them how to.
It took a while to convince the US scientists who were mainly interested in making big hot piles for power.
The actual building of atomic weapons (Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy) took place under a fully authoritarian ultra secret State directed militarily controlled program that cost a significant chunk of national GDP.
The example you chose appears to be both incorrect and the very opposite of whatever point you wanted to make.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant
The jingoist dream of America is falling apart. It must seem, to some who are very dependent on it existing, as if the sky actually is falling. Perhaps it's just a good opportunity for them to study history that has been untouched by North American propaganda.
Anyways, we have the Internet, I'm not sure it matters _where_ innovations are created anymore. It certainly does not seem to be stopping China on any level.
America is going to have to give up the "World Police" (a.k.a. The Military Industrial Complex) badge and move into it's relative political middle age with a little more care and aplomb than the last 6 decades have allowed for. The haze of WW2 is far behind us now.
Anyways, we have the Internet, I'm not sure it matters _where_ innovations are created anymore. It certainly does not seem to be stopping China on any level.
America is going to have to give up the "World Police" (a.k.a. The Military Industrial Complex) badge and move into it's relative political middle age with a little more care and aplomb than the last 6 decades have allowed for. The haze of WW2 is far behind us now.
You're asking for sea shipping to stop working because naval piracy is going to come back. The "military industrial complex" isn't real and isn't a significant part of the economy (military spending as % US GDP has continually fallen over time), but the Navy patrolling the entire world's oceans for free has been real until now.
> You're asking for sea shipping to stop working because naval piracy is going to come back.
That's a huge exaggeration. Who would commit naval piracy in the current age? Somalia, with their little boats and AK-47s? China already has a bigger fleet than the US and can easily take on the burden of securing trade routes, since they are the biggest beneficiary.
That's a huge exaggeration. Who would commit naval piracy in the current age? Somalia, with their little boats and AK-47s? China already has a bigger fleet than the US and can easily take on the burden of securing trade routes, since they are the biggest beneficiary.
China isn't going to secure anyone /else's/ trade routes, only theirs. They only protect their own ships in those routes too.
You are mistaken. If the US decided to give up its role, there would be a void, a void that anyone who filled it would gain soft power from. China would be very interested in taking the place of the US in securing global trade routes, because doing so would not only provide soft power but also signal that China had replaced the US as the world’s hegemon.
China (at least its current incarnation with Xi) doesn't care about soft power and thinks the only reason anyone else tries it is they're overly sentimental losers. That's why they have that wolf warrior diplomacy program where they just had diplomats insult everyone.
We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.
We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.
> China (at least its current incarnation with Xi) doesn't care about soft power
That’s just wrong. Xi has explicitly ordered cadres to "tell China’s story well"[1] and build "discourse power" that’s textbook soft-power ambition. Surveys show it’s working, China jumped to #3 in 2024 and #2 in 2025 on brand finance’s global soft power index.
1. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspec...
> We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.
This is NOT piracy. Under UNCLOS Art. 101, piracy requires acts "for private ends" on the high seas. The Houthi campaign is openly political/armed-conflict behavior, so it doesn’t meet the piracy definition (even though it looks like it to laypeople).
That’s just wrong. Xi has explicitly ordered cadres to "tell China’s story well"[1] and build "discourse power" that’s textbook soft-power ambition. Surveys show it’s working, China jumped to #3 in 2024 and #2 in 2025 on brand finance’s global soft power index.
1. https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspec...
> We already have piracy coming back with the Houthis; China didn't join the alliance with other countries, defended their own ships and ignored everyone else.
This is NOT piracy. Under UNCLOS Art. 101, piracy requires acts "for private ends" on the high seas. The Houthi campaign is openly political/armed-conflict behavior, so it doesn’t meet the piracy definition (even though it looks like it to laypeople).
Nonsense. I'm asking for other nations to pay for their own defense. You seem to believe, without any evidence, that if the US Navy can't patrol the oceans, then no one can. Which is such an insane position to take I can't believe you're being anything but flippant or perhaps that you work for the Navy itself.
The "military industrial complex" is absolutely real. You just don't seem to realize that the MIC is into buying software and social media networks these days and not so much carriers and jet fighters. So your spending analysis is flawed and your outcome analysis is wildly out of touch with actual reality.
It's an extremely infantile view. Bought and paid for by the MIC itself. No wonder you can't recognize the reality of it.
The "military industrial complex" is absolutely real. You just don't seem to realize that the MIC is into buying software and social media networks these days and not so much carriers and jet fighters. So your spending analysis is flawed and your outcome analysis is wildly out of touch with actual reality.
It's an extremely infantile view. Bought and paid for by the MIC itself. No wonder you can't recognize the reality of it.
No one else is going to because no one else has a deep water navy they're going to use for this. Whereas it's the first thing the US ever did (in the Barbary Wars). Everyone else pays for it by using our currency and trading with us for cheap.
> Bought and paid for by the MIC itself.
One thing you can always use to spot low-trust conspiratorial types is they insist that all bad things are caused by "corporations" and involve money in some vague way, but then they never believe any actual specific information if it conflicts with their vague ideas of evil corporations doing things out there, vaguely.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
> Bought and paid for by the MIC itself.
One thing you can always use to spot low-trust conspiratorial types is they insist that all bad things are caused by "corporations" and involve money in some vague way, but then they never believe any actual specific information if it conflicts with their vague ideas of evil corporations doing things out there, vaguely.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locat...
Interesting. How about we replace the USA (I mostly highlighted the US because that's where this site and the population that use it is based) with the Allies. And being authoritarian isn't about having secretive or highly controlled group (which makes sense given what they were working on and the stakes), but rather the general cultural interpretation of freedom perceived by those who are likely to be doing research. And while you can argue that the USA had authoritarian overtones then as well, the key point is that they weren't as overt as having to greet everyone with good tidings for your supreme leader and keep all your opinions strictly in line with the party's. Notes released from the German scientists (I think Heisenberg comes to mind?) revealed they weren't highly motivated by the regime's philosophy despite supporting it outwardly while those who were the most invested into the Nazi ideology never published much of note.
This is propaganda.
The Manhattan project succeeded because it was consuming a significant portion of the US GDP at the time, the scientists were forced to live on site with their families and every word they said was monitored.
The Manhattan project succeeded because it was consuming a significant portion of the US GDP at the time, the scientists were forced to live on site with their families and every word they said was monitored.
Projects such as these consume large sums of money no matter who funds them. But the scientists that worked on it were not forced to work on it, a large number of them were refugees from exactly the kind of regime that the OP contrasts the United States with, which at the time, side-by-side would definitely be favorable for the US.
Military projects, especially making the most powerful weapon in history for use in the largest war up to that point, are always done with as much secrecy as is feasible. Living on-site was also practical: the reason the site was as isolated as it was was in part because of secrecy, the families being there was both to improve security and for convenience. Finally, yes, every word they said was monitored. But they were scientists and their families working on top secret machinery of war, which ended up changing the course of history in a significant way, they quite literally ushered in a new age. They knew they were monitored and that this was one part of the price to pay for working on that project.
In contrast with that age: now all our words are monitored, even inane ones that are exchanged between people who would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Military projects, especially making the most powerful weapon in history for use in the largest war up to that point, are always done with as much secrecy as is feasible. Living on-site was also practical: the reason the site was as isolated as it was was in part because of secrecy, the families being there was both to improve security and for convenience. Finally, yes, every word they said was monitored. But they were scientists and their families working on top secret machinery of war, which ended up changing the course of history in a significant way, they quite literally ushered in a new age. They knew they were monitored and that this was one part of the price to pay for working on that project.
In contrast with that age: now all our words are monitored, even inane ones that are exchanged between people who would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
>This is propaganda.
The Manhattan project succeeded because it was consuming a significant portion of the US GDP at the time.
I'm confused, are you claiming the enemy was not consuming a significant portion of their GDP on their weapons program?
the "necessary but not sufficient" concept applies here.
I'm confused, are you claiming the enemy was not consuming a significant portion of their GDP on their weapons program?
the "necessary but not sufficient" concept applies here.
Go deeper - why does anti-intellectualism emerge?
Nationalist populism sacrifices academics and intellectuals to create a divide between “the people” and the presumed said “elite,” which is then weaponized for political gain by the actual “elite” (political, economical, etc). These movements rely on emotional resonance and simplified narratives, as opposed to educated, informed discourse.
My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.
https://warwick.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/researchers_point_t...
https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/1/1/ksab002/6185295
My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.
https://warwick.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/researchers_point_t...
https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/1/1/ksab002/6185295
My take is that it's a bit of a two-way street. "Regular" people resent the elites, yes. But the regular people perceive (correctly) that the elites aren't all that interested in the regular people, either.
If the Democrats had been (and had messaged themselves as being) the party of the working class, they would have drained the swamp that Trump's support comes from. Instead, the message was "if you're working class, and you don't support gay marriage and trans people in sports, and you think that abortion is morally wrong, then you are a moral outcast and we are going to destroy your entire culture." They may have been pro-working-class, but they were pro other things more, and those other things were not big concerns for the working class. And many of the working class took a different stance on the cultural issues than the Democratic leadership.
In fact, the Democrats quit cultivating their base, and so their base walked away from them to someone who at least pretended to care about them.
Nationalist populism harvested that. But there has to be something growing before it can be harvested, and nationalist populism didn't sow the seeds.
If the Democrats had been (and had messaged themselves as being) the party of the working class, they would have drained the swamp that Trump's support comes from. Instead, the message was "if you're working class, and you don't support gay marriage and trans people in sports, and you think that abortion is morally wrong, then you are a moral outcast and we are going to destroy your entire culture." They may have been pro-working-class, but they were pro other things more, and those other things were not big concerns for the working class. And many of the working class took a different stance on the cultural issues than the Democratic leadership.
In fact, the Democrats quit cultivating their base, and so their base walked away from them to someone who at least pretended to care about them.
Nationalist populism harvested that. But there has to be something growing before it can be harvested, and nationalist populism didn't sow the seeds.
It also does this so that when intellectuals call out their bullshit they can more easily dismiss it as hysteria.
Indeed, but that’s why humiliating them is so effective as a response (think South Park’s latest season). Their outlet for the humiliation and resentment they feel is anger and attempts at grasping power, and when that doesn’t lead to the desired outcome, they have no way to cope with the consequences of not reaching the expected status outcome. They demand respect and control, and to deny them that is to deny them their validation and belief of their value. A bully or authoritarian without control is like a dethroned monarch; still convinced of their right to rule, but forced to live in a world that no longer bends to their demands.
This is circumlocution. Who is they? Them? What? You're just reciting words. What dialectic is this? Ok let me try in random generalization speak...
Nothing in physics requires us to buy into the political documents; if the average person isn't owed anything under the rules, no one is.
Either we're science driven where only politics makes someone special and we should then moderate that because in reality, they are not special, just a button pusher, just a signature. Or we're a bunch of idiots living in a trailer park.
Seems you subscribe to the whole "everything is a mystery to politics" when it's just biology self-selecting and we should fucking moderate that. With violence if necessary. Because fuck them. They aren't owed anything either, they're just manipulating politics.
Nothing in physics requires us to buy into the political documents; if the average person isn't owed anything under the rules, no one is.
Either we're science driven where only politics makes someone special and we should then moderate that because in reality, they are not special, just a button pusher, just a signature. Or we're a bunch of idiots living in a trailer park.
Seems you subscribe to the whole "everything is a mystery to politics" when it's just biology self-selecting and we should fucking moderate that. With violence if necessary. Because fuck them. They aren't owed anything either, they're just manipulating politics.
I say we launch the nukes and tell everyone who leaned into willful ignorance "aw how sad it didn't go the way you wanted."
Headlines like this don't help.
"Scientific fraud has become an 'industry,' analysis finds"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796526
"Scientific fraud has become an 'industry,' analysis finds"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796526
But the Soviets made them second…
Not because they trusted their scientists to be able to do it though. They used the plans stolen form the US instead.
It's somewhat more complicated given that much of the significant work passed on by Klaus Fuchs to the Soviets that they acknowledge was responsible for the first Soviet fission bomb was Fuchs own work .. he shared with the British, the Americans, the Canadians, and the Soviets .. who were all ostensibly allies at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
Adding to @eastbound's comment the Soviets were also responsible for the first remote operated "robot" on the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
Adding to @eastbound's comment the Soviets were also responsible for the first remote operated "robot" on the moon.
What is the complication to my story here... Allies do not share all secrets.
Not sure what relevance the space race has to this topic either!
Not sure what relevance the space race has to this topic either!
The Soviets had the first flying object in space, the first animal in space, the first human in space, first spacewalk, first woman, first space station. I doubt those plans were all in the US, and if they were, the US didn’t use them.
> The Soviets had the […]first woman,[…]
That is quite the claim !
That is quite the claim !
Claim? It's a matter of history. Her name is Valentina Tereshkova, and she's still alive. [0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova
Woosh! It's clearly a joke. "first woman" vs "first woman in space".
Well then maybe it is easier to let someone else do the heavy lifting first
This is complete moral bankruptcy. You're saying it would be better, rather than developing excellency, to instead become a parasite. I understand that in a world where winning is all that matters, this might be a viable strategy... For a while, until everyone adopts it or you otherwise kill your host. But this is not what being a human is about. I wouldn't want you near anything I care about
Moral bankruptcy is probably a bridge too far here: in weapons, especially with weapons of such power, espionage should be expected. Besides, upon first use you advertise the possibility and that alone will be an enabler, an existential proof that something is possible but you don't know how is a completely different story than groping in the dark while wondering if a thing is possible or not. Any kind of lead will surely be sooner or later be squashed. Note that nobody thought that using the patent system to get IP protection on the Atomic Bomb was a good idea: our friendly ways to establish who gets to make bank on an invention like that would simply fail and would actually pass valuable information to the perceived opponents.
When applied to medicine that same attitude becomes parasitic: you may be able to make much more money by restricting the distribution of the knowledge that could save people or prevent their suffering. This is where Martin Shkreli and other such characters come in to play.
When applied to medicine that same attitude becomes parasitic: you may be able to make much more money by restricting the distribution of the knowledge that could save people or prevent their suffering. This is where Martin Shkreli and other such characters come in to play.
Nice revisionism you got there. It wasn't Americans that discovered it. It was mostly German scientists working in the US after they fled their own more oppressive state.
People that flee their own, more oppressive state to build a better life in America are Americans. That's the whole point.
That does not sound like an opinion the current administration shares.
Do you really think WWII America was a less oppressive state? Do you know much harder it was to get porn back then? Or be a trans? Japanese internment? Food ration cards? Office of Censorship? Smith Act? The draft? Curfews and blackouts?
All that stuff was bad, especially Japanese internment, but this feels like a whole different category. It's a full-blown ceding control of the country to one man.
FDR had and exercised far more authority than Trump ever dreamed of.
It was so centralized, we effectively had Eleanor Roosevelt as acting President much of the time.
It was so centralized, we effectively had Eleanor Roosevelt as acting President much of the time.
Lol what? At the time that was done we were drafting people to fight in foreign wars, taxes were extraordinarily high (after having zero income tax just recently) and those weapons were built specifically to support that.
I have no respect for republicans. Very hysterical people.
I truly cannot understand the people that support this administration. I know I certainly wouldn’t have chosen to defund education and healthcare while simultaneously running up the national dept to pay for a private police force loyal only to the president. I used to think there was some way to bridge the divide, but I just have no patience or respect for the other side anymore.
Related paulg tweet: https://x.com/paulg/status/1951996478555357530
"The Trump administration has suspended the funding of Terence Tao and the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics at UCLA."
"The Trump administration has suspended the funding of Terence Tao and the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics at UCLA."
Terence Tao's toot on mathstodon.xyz: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114956840959338146
The replies to his tweet are a cesspool. Why do people still use Twitter?
Because it has an enormous userbase including active daily postings from many of the most prominent minds.
> The replies to his tweet are a cesspool.
Maybe it's just Twitter's algorithm that only serves me the decent replies - but these at least have a point, antisemitism is running utterly rampant in academia these days. In no relation to Qatari funding, one might assume...
Maybe it's just Twitter's algorithm that only serves me the decent replies - but these at least have a point, antisemitism is running utterly rampant in academia these days. In no relation to Qatari funding, one might assume...
.
Paul Graham? Pretty sure he was anti-Trump before the last election.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those “enlightened centrists.”
But I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those “enlightened centrists.”
Maybe I've unfairly judged him. Last I remember seeing was some pearl clutching about how Trump/Musk needed to "be careful" with what DOGE cut or something. I took that assumption of good faith as an indication of being in the reality distortion field, like too many other VCs are.
That would be "enlightened centrists". You know having that thing where you do not condone apparent nonsense, but you will really really go far out of your way to sane wash and give absurd benefits of the doubt - but only to "the side you totally are not supporting no".
The opponents of "the side you totally are not supporting no" wont get any benefits of doubt, will have words super scrutinized and instead sanewashed will be exaggerated.
The opponents of "the side you totally are not supporting no" wont get any benefits of doubt, will have words super scrutinized and instead sanewashed will be exaggerated.
Money makes them vulnerable.
They didn’t get to where they are without playing a conformance game. That limits the degree to which they can object to anything.
They didn’t get to where they are without playing a conformance game. That limits the degree to which they can object to anything.
Money should make them less vulnerable. They can lose their job, be blacklisted, whatever, and still be fine. Not like the ordinary person where this would mean homelessness.
If they’re vulnerable, it’s the psychological need to keep adding to their pile of money that does it.
If they’re vulnerable, it’s the psychological need to keep adding to their pile of money that does it.
That’s not quite right. An administration like Trump’s can destroy people and companies if they really want to, and that’s the threat they’re using to get their way. Openly defying that is taking a big risk - for the targets, it’s not about “adding to their pile of money”, it’s about not losing much of what they have.
Keep in mind that “money” is not some sort of concrete thing like a pile of gold - it’s dependent on factors like the value of companies. The wealthier someone in the US is, the more their wealth depends on their ultimate cooperation with the prevailing powers.
Keep in mind that “money” is not some sort of concrete thing like a pile of gold - it’s dependent on factors like the value of companies. The wealthier someone in the US is, the more their wealth depends on their ultimate cooperation with the prevailing powers.
They could lose 90% of what they have and still be comfortable for the rest of their life.
And the only reason their money depends on factors like the value of companies is because they want to add to the pile. It could literally be a pile of gold if they wanted it to be, that's just not the best way to make it grow. More realistically, it could be invested in index funds or something similar that the administration can't selectively destroy.
Worst case the government finds a way to confiscate everything, or imprison/kill them, in which case they're exactly as vulnerable as a normal person.
And the only reason their money depends on factors like the value of companies is because they want to add to the pile. It could literally be a pile of gold if they wanted it to be, that's just not the best way to make it grow. More realistically, it could be invested in index funds or something similar that the administration can't selectively destroy.
Worst case the government finds a way to confiscate everything, or imprison/kill them, in which case they're exactly as vulnerable as a normal person.
All bureaucrats do this sort of thing: shut down something innocent to serve as a rallying cry.
UCLA has $8 billion in endowments and the state universities in total have $30 billion in endowment funds. How many years could they fund Tao and his institute if they really wanted to?
UCLA has $8 billion in endowments and the state universities in total have $30 billion in endowment funds. How many years could they fund Tao and his institute if they really wanted to?
The govt has frozen about $584 million in grants to UCLA. The endowment won't last very long if they spent it to replace that. Furthermore, endowment money often has conditions that prevent it being spent freely + it is used for other things.
it truly is astonishing how idiotic or malicious so many of the posters on HN are in the face of this.
yes, actually, it is bad if a bunch of racist lunatics are personally in charge of things, and increase their personal power to make arbitrary decisions based on their stupid hobby horses or deeply dumb opinions.
yes, actually, this is different to when Biden or Obama or Bush presided over a functioning government, that had people you may or may not disagree with having some influence on things, this Trump Reign system is personalised autocracy.
yes, actually, it is bad if the government's sole agenda is "implement dumb ideas from dumb people" and "fuck the left/non-whites/immigrants/scientists".
it's especially dumb to be so unaware of why the world is so good now. it's not luck, it's centuries of hard work by our ancestors. why don't 50% of children simply die? because of medical research, healthcare, food subsidies, etc etc etc. why does the internet exist? because the US government funded a dumb thing for a while then a lot of other people and countries spent a lot of money and effort to make it this.
yes, actually, it is bad if a bunch of racist lunatics are personally in charge of things, and increase their personal power to make arbitrary decisions based on their stupid hobby horses or deeply dumb opinions.
yes, actually, this is different to when Biden or Obama or Bush presided over a functioning government, that had people you may or may not disagree with having some influence on things, this Trump Reign system is personalised autocracy.
yes, actually, it is bad if the government's sole agenda is "implement dumb ideas from dumb people" and "fuck the left/non-whites/immigrants/scientists".
it's especially dumb to be so unaware of why the world is so good now. it's not luck, it's centuries of hard work by our ancestors. why don't 50% of children simply die? because of medical research, healthcare, food subsidies, etc etc etc. why does the internet exist? because the US government funded a dumb thing for a while then a lot of other people and countries spent a lot of money and effort to make it this.
archagon(1)
I wonder what the democrats are going to do when their midterms fail and their hats are out of rabbits.
Lament the state of things, blame Republicans and third party voters, take more money from fossil fuel and AIPAC, do a bit more insider trading, and ask us all for more money because they're totally going to protect abortion rights and stop ICE this time.
An arms embargo vs Israel would be wildly popular among Dem voters - but don't ask campaign staffers about it unless you want to be marked as "no response" [0].
0 - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/uncommitted-le...
An arms embargo vs Israel would be wildly popular among Dem voters - but don't ask campaign staffers about it unless you want to be marked as "no response" [0].
0 - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/uncommitted-le...
[deleted]
"You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you."
Hey, and what will stop these political appointees from terminating grants because the scientists publicly support Democrats? or criticized Trump's public policy? Or called Stephen Miller a Nazi?
And so now, I have to police my free speech and participation in the public sphere because I'm afraid someone might choose to nuke the lab. That's some bullshit there.
And so now, I have to police my free speech and participation in the public sphere because I'm afraid someone might choose to nuke the lab. That's some bullshit there.
> Hey, and what will stop these political appointees from terminating grants because the scientists publicly support Democrats?
Vigorous adherence to the First Amendment by the Administration and, failing that, vigorous enforcement of it by the federal courts.
More seriously, nothing, and that’s the point.
Vigorous adherence to the First Amendment by the Administration and, failing that, vigorous enforcement of it by the federal courts.
More seriously, nothing, and that’s the point.
This is extremely disappointing, and worrisome. Science is hard enough without this bull
How much of this shit is even legal?
What does “legal” even matter when you ignore lower courts, stop them from being able to issue injunctions, and have the Supreme Court in your pocket?
This last election was the end of American democracy.
This last election was the end of American democracy.
We shall see. Undoubtedly much of this order will be challenged by some pretty powerful institutions and lawyers. Unfortunately, my confidence in the supreme court to uphold the fairest or least destructive interpretation of the law is at an all time low.
I know someone who lost their job in the recent cuts. They worked for a nonprofit funded by the government, and the funding was eliminated. It was challenged in court, and the government lost. They were ordered to restore funding. The person in charge of the funding just... didn’t pay. Legal or not, the money remained in the government’s accounts rather than the nonprofit’s, and the nonprofit shut down.
Until we have actual penalties for the people in charge, it doesn’t even matter whether the courts uphold this stuff or not.
Until we have actual penalties for the people in charge, it doesn’t even matter whether the courts uphold this stuff or not.
I believed this too but the last few months we’ve seen powerful institution after institution just kinda give up or not even try
Ah, so a party official must approve the grants?
Trump has been learning from Winnie the Pooh. How very Communist of him.
Trump has been learning from Winnie the Pooh. How very Communist of him.
[deleted]
I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy. It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science. Sure private donors have interest driven motives too but it would be diffuse across many areas not concentrated like a political party’s interests.
The biggest reason is because we have a strategic multinational interest in remaining a leader in science. China (and other countries) will fund science. We have to as well, or we fall behind. Its national security.
We also have a strategic interest in draining intelligent individuals from other countries and nationalizing them in ours, which science funding plays a major part in doing.
One of the reasons why its complicated, however, is that the University environment has changed significantly in the US. What used to be academically-motivated institutions dedicated to the pursuit of education are now, essentially, just boring businesses, with more middle managers than educators. As one example, UCLA has a $9.8B endowment. Their athletics programs brought in $120M last year (though, they spent more, and the university itself had to provide gap funding of $30M. yup.) IPAM was receiving $5M/year in NSF funding (DMS-1925919). One obviously extreme way of looking at this: UCLA could have funded Terrance Tao's mathematics research group for six years with the money they used to save a hundred million dollar athletics program that's somehow still losing money.
This is a priorities issue for universities, through and through. But, Universities have slowly evolved their priorities to bloat their managerial class, which has forced them into impossible financial situations where the only way out is to bias investment into revenue generating verticals like maximizing the size of the student body at any cost on the backs of no-default student loans, international students, and athletics programs. Research takes a back seat.
I am all for public funding of science, but even many university researchers would argue, as a part of the system, that its broken (for reasons which extend even beyond those I've brought up). That's why I struggle to take a solid side on this issue; I want science, but what I want more is a University system that actually takes education and research seriously.
We also have a strategic interest in draining intelligent individuals from other countries and nationalizing them in ours, which science funding plays a major part in doing.
One of the reasons why its complicated, however, is that the University environment has changed significantly in the US. What used to be academically-motivated institutions dedicated to the pursuit of education are now, essentially, just boring businesses, with more middle managers than educators. As one example, UCLA has a $9.8B endowment. Their athletics programs brought in $120M last year (though, they spent more, and the university itself had to provide gap funding of $30M. yup.) IPAM was receiving $5M/year in NSF funding (DMS-1925919). One obviously extreme way of looking at this: UCLA could have funded Terrance Tao's mathematics research group for six years with the money they used to save a hundred million dollar athletics program that's somehow still losing money.
This is a priorities issue for universities, through and through. But, Universities have slowly evolved their priorities to bloat their managerial class, which has forced them into impossible financial situations where the only way out is to bias investment into revenue generating verticals like maximizing the size of the student body at any cost on the backs of no-default student loans, international students, and athletics programs. Research takes a back seat.
I am all for public funding of science, but even many university researchers would argue, as a part of the system, that its broken (for reasons which extend even beyond those I've brought up). That's why I struggle to take a solid side on this issue; I want science, but what I want more is a University system that actually takes education and research seriously.
The current system is broken but nothing about this administration is aimed at helping fix its problems.
With most actions, there's nothing being remedied, just an assertion of control. The action isn't tied to an improvement goal or a remedy with rationale.
As Tao noted, in cases where a remedy for a wrong is mentioned, the remedies being proposed by the administration do far more harm to any ostensible victims than the original asserted wrongs.
Nothing about their actions is in good faith in terms of improving academics in the US, nor do they even try in most cases to pretend to be trying to improve academics at all.
With most actions, there's nothing being remedied, just an assertion of control. The action isn't tied to an improvement goal or a remedy with rationale.
As Tao noted, in cases where a remedy for a wrong is mentioned, the remedies being proposed by the administration do far more harm to any ostensible victims than the original asserted wrongs.
Nothing about their actions is in good faith in terms of improving academics in the US, nor do they even try in most cases to pretend to be trying to improve academics at all.
I agree that there is no reason to believe the current administration has any priority in fixing the situation, and its definitely reasonable to state that they're operating in bad faith, and that we have much bigger problems than this situation. However; continuing to pump taxpayer dollars and debt into an already enriched, broken system like this is on some level negligence.
UCLA paid their head football coach ~$6M/year. Will they ever decide to take any kind of money of that scale and fund Tao's research at IPAM? The reason you'll hear is "its ROI, a great football program generates revenue for the university" but the reality is: like 70% of University athletics programs are unprofitable, including UCLA's football program. Moreover: while I understand that universities have to operate like a business, their business goal must be "to make as much awesome education and research happen"; everything must serve that goal, and it doesn't today. I am extremely unconvinced that hyper-sized athletics programs and millionaire coaches further this goal, especially against the backdrop that they're tremendously and systemically unprofitable for everyone except the coaches, management, and the NCAA.
UCLA paid their head football coach ~$6M/year. Will they ever decide to take any kind of money of that scale and fund Tao's research at IPAM? The reason you'll hear is "its ROI, a great football program generates revenue for the university" but the reality is: like 70% of University athletics programs are unprofitable, including UCLA's football program. Moreover: while I understand that universities have to operate like a business, their business goal must be "to make as much awesome education and research happen"; everything must serve that goal, and it doesn't today. I am extremely unconvinced that hyper-sized athletics programs and millionaire coaches further this goal, especially against the backdrop that they're tremendously and systemically unprofitable for everyone except the coaches, management, and the NCAA.
It’s also that most r1 university budgets single largest contributor is grant overhead which is the approximate 50% of the grant you win is given to the university. But the people who write and win these grants have little say over how this money is spent. Also because universities are impervious to reorganising there is a lot of extra weight within departments as well.
The Trump administration has actually passed an order to limit this to 15% of the grant value. But, the point stands.
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/indirect-cost-rate
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/indirect-cost-rate
> I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy.
Two reasons.
First, private philanthropy is neither sustainable nor sufficient in scope.
Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
> It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science.
Yes, relying on private entities to fund scientific research does seem like an obvious channel for corruption.
Two reasons.
First, private philanthropy is neither sustainable nor sufficient in scope.
Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
> It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science.
Yes, relying on private entities to fund scientific research does seem like an obvious channel for corruption.
> Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
Well, hundreds of elected representatives and a handful of judges have had to entirely abdicate their responsibility and power for us to arrive at this point. It's not just one guy.
Sadly true and the real mystery for me.
The problem and paradox is that it's hundreds of elected representatives and a handful of judges entirely abdicating their responsibility to make it just one guy.
The problem and paradox is that it's hundreds of elected representatives and a handful of judges entirely abdicating their responsibility to make it just one guy.
>> Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
> I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
Quite true, sadly.
I am reminded of an old adage[0]:
> I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
Quite true, sadly.
I am reminded of an old adage[0]:
In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice, while in practice there is.
Neoclassical economics has an answer!
The market can't provide public goods like basic research since it's non-excludable. This is a market failure, causing inefficient allocation of resources.
Therefore, the government has to provide it. This can improve efficiency of resource distribution, if done well.
Whether it's done well is not a foregone conclusion. That's why we need effective and technocratic state capacity, free from corruption and independent of political influence.
The market can't provide public goods like basic research since it's non-excludable. This is a market failure, causing inefficient allocation of resources.
Therefore, the government has to provide it. This can improve efficiency of resource distribution, if done well.
Whether it's done well is not a foregone conclusion. That's why we need effective and technocratic state capacity, free from corruption and independent of political influence.
I don’t feel like what you said provided an answer.
> I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy.
Because basic science is the sort of thing that no one funds, yet winds up being very useful at the applied science phase that people do fund. So it's useful as a community to fund basic science as it leads to really cool applied science where people can start turning profits
Is anything stopping private philanthropy from funding science today? Generally speaking it is in the government’s interest to support fundamental scientific research.
I’m not aware of anything stopping it except for perhaps how the system is set up.
Like if I want to fund a pet study that I’m interested in, can I just call up Harvard and offer the lab $1M to work on it? I’ve never heard of anyone doing that, but I’m not really sure why it doesn’t exist (which is why I’m asking if anyone else knows).
Like if I want to fund a pet study that I’m interested in, can I just call up Harvard and offer the lab $1M to work on it? I’ve never heard of anyone doing that, but I’m not really sure why it doesn’t exist (which is why I’m asking if anyone else knows).
That does happen: foundations will fund specific research and universities apply and get it. What is often different is that foundations rarely put out open calls outside the areas the foundation is specifically interested in. That is where government funding tends to be better: covers many more areas than foundations tend to be interested in. There’s nothing stopping foundations from doing that, but I haven’t seen it very often other than a couple calls here and there. I’ve been a researcher chasing money for decades: I’d love it if foundations would fill this role, but alas, they don’t so far. Plus, the scale doesn’t match: if you added up all the private funding that is available, it’s tiny compared to the federal science budgets.
> That does happen: foundations will fund specific research and universities apply and get it
For instance, the Chan Zuckerberg Institute before Zuck decided he had to appear to hate science in order to curry favor with the current regime.
For instance, the Chan Zuckerberg Institute before Zuck decided he had to appear to hate science in order to curry favor with the current regime.
More or less. Corporations fund research all the time. Just to pick a random example, check out the acknowledgements on this paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/132
"This work was funded in part by NSF Award CNS-2054869 and gifts from Apple, Capital One, Facebook, Google, and Mozilla."
That said, private grant funding is just of a completely different scale than government grant funding. For example, NIH's annual budget is 48 billion and most of that goes to research (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget).
"This work was funded in part by NSF Award CNS-2054869 and gifts from Apple, Capital One, Facebook, Google, and Mozilla."
That said, private grant funding is just of a completely different scale than government grant funding. For example, NIH's annual budget is 48 billion and most of that goes to research (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget).
Give Harvard's Office for Sponsored Programs a call and tell them you are ready to award $1M. It really helps if you already have a lab or PI in mind.
Office for Sponsored Programs
1033 Massachusetts Avenue
5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
617-495-5501
[email protected]If there’s a specific researcher you want to fund, you can absolutely call them up. There will be paperwork around IP, independence, etc.
If you want them to do a specific experiment you’ll likely first need to convince them that it’s a good use of their time.
Harvard itself plays approximately zero role in the decision to do a study or not. (There are ethical oversight committees, etc.)
$1M total cost ($600-800k direct cost depending on terms) will buy you a postdoc’s time and effort for 5 years. Unfortunately most labs aren’t set up for a time/money tradeoff, so 5 postdocs for 1 year would be unlikely absent a really exciting project.
It definitely happens quite a bit!
If you want them to do a specific experiment you’ll likely first need to convince them that it’s a good use of their time.
Harvard itself plays approximately zero role in the decision to do a study or not. (There are ethical oversight committees, etc.)
$1M total cost ($600-800k direct cost depending on terms) will buy you a postdoc’s time and effort for 5 years. Unfortunately most labs aren’t set up for a time/money tradeoff, so 5 postdocs for 1 year would be unlikely absent a really exciting project.
It definitely happens quite a bit!
Yes, the interests of private donors. Private philanthropy mostly feeds what private donors are interests in (weighted, of course, by having money to give, so for all intents and purposes, it goes where the interests of the superwealthy are.)
And those tend to be: things that are perceived by the donor as having high immediate returns, things that are perceived by the public as having high immediate returns and thus are good for buying status, and things that provide a convenient channel for the donor to exercise power via the donation, making it away to enjoy wealth while also getting a tax break for it.
Basic science doesn't tend to fit any of those, which is why science funded by private philanthropy is small compared either to government funding of basic science or total private philanthropy.
And those tend to be: things that are perceived by the donor as having high immediate returns, things that are perceived by the public as having high immediate returns and thus are good for buying status, and things that provide a convenient channel for the donor to exercise power via the donation, making it away to enjoy wealth while also getting a tax break for it.
Basic science doesn't tend to fit any of those, which is why science funded by private philanthropy is small compared either to government funding of basic science or total private philanthropy.
The same reason bridges and aircraft carriers and public schools aren't funded by private philanthropy. Why am I paying taxes if not to fund things done for the public interest?
There's a half hour explanation of how the government funding of science research became a thing in the USA.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/28/1253247256/-higher-education-...
Private philanthropy doesn't feel like it's free from corruption.
Recent events related to the Qatari funding make this poignant.
Because hope is not a strategy.
Because imagine just for the sake of discussion (I am well aware this is not possible. Just trying to make an extreme point. You could pick HIV or MS or Parking's or any other incurable disease) there was a magic pill that could cure cancer. You take it once a day for a week and any cancer is gone. Doesn't matter which cancer. All of them, gone for good. Magical!
Would would ANY private enterprise (i.e. pharmaceutical company) want to fund research that would enable that?
The immense money (the US spends over $200B a year in cancer 'treatments') that these companies would not be making anymore would deter any such research.
Same goes for many other scientific discoveries. Some are for the greater humanitarian good, not for private enterprise profit maximisation.
Would would ANY private enterprise (i.e. pharmaceutical company) want to fund research that would enable that?
The immense money (the US spends over $200B a year in cancer 'treatments') that these companies would not be making anymore would deter any such research.
Same goes for many other scientific discoveries. Some are for the greater humanitarian good, not for private enterprise profit maximisation.
All companies are not one giant entity. Even when they illegally collude, they're holding onto their knives and keeping a keen eye on one another's backs.
Of course any company would take this deal and make a boatload of money (though less than the $200B / year).
Undercutting all its competitors would be a bonus, not a deterrent.
This has happened so many times throughout history. New tech comes in, does the same thing cheaper and better, old companies die out kicking and screaming.
Of course any company would take this deal and make a boatload of money (though less than the $200B / year).
Undercutting all its competitors would be a bonus, not a deterrent.
This has happened so many times throughout history. New tech comes in, does the same thing cheaper and better, old companies die out kicking and screaming.
What biased incentives does a government have that isn't even worse than a corporation or an individual who has large sway in corporation? How exactly would Dow Chemical funding research for understanding cancer effects on chemicals they produce not be extremely biased? Why would other rich people who are friends of the CEO of Dow fund that research? How exactly would a private donor fund something like the Apollo missions? Why would they bother when they could just reinvest their money to make more money? These billionaires could be donating billions right now and in large they aren't.
Because not all science that needs to be done is profitable.
Companies and their shareholders only do things that are profitable.
Companies and their shareholders only do things that are profitable.
That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.