The Soviet Union is famous for telling scientists which scientific theories were acceptable to study. Science had to conform to the Party's ideology. This seems to be what you are advocating, and it seems you are mocking literal scientists for being upset by it.
Yes, it is factual. They are overriding peer review to require changes to research scope and design. Did you read the actual article. Allow me to quote:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
* In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*vHHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*vAn ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population.
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says."
Inaccurate, wrong. Did you read the article? to the end? political appointees shouldn't be trying to tell scientists what analyses to do. This is not the Soviet Union.
Here:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
*In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*HHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*An ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population."
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says.
Congress restored funding for it, but they are going to dismantle it anyway?
>The ocean observation system began operating in 2016 and was expected to continue for 25 years... It cost $48 million annually to operate the network. The Trump administration repeatedly tried to shutter it, proposing to cut its funding by 80 percent in both 2025 and again in 2026. Congress pushed back, restoring the money.
Once again Trump and Vought trying to usurp the authority of Congress. A few millions saved ... while Trump wants a billion for his ballroom and a 1.776 billion slushfund for insurrectionists.
I've never had a problem with Kia. But then I drive responsibly, so my comment to you is: maybe don't repeatedly change lanes at rush hour at dusk and dawn when there is more limited visibility.
Psychopy is a mess of a project. It hasn't gotten any better from my perspective, even after hiring full time developers, because most of their effort is focused on the single-gui-app and Pavolovia.
I have to say that I am extremely reluctant to switch over to yet another python management system (packaging, environment, python version). Every few years someone says: this is it. Switch to poetry! Okay, I did. And, at least for some academic packages, psychopy I'm looking at you, it was a friggin disaster.
Okay, but isn't this just what all people do? Everyone has a lifetime of normal behavior expectations reinforced to a point where they are truly internalized that there's something wrong with not doing the "normal" thing.
That's called enculturation.
I find a lot very confusing about the idea of masking. Everyone masks, even people who are more neurotypical than autists. Getting along with social life means not showing every emotion, it means being uncomfortable, doing things that you personally dislike or find uncomfortable, feigning more comfort in social situations than you actually feel, regulating your behavior to fit in, etc. And then going home to detox and restore your energy with private time.
I'm not saying that masking is autism is not a thing. But most of what I hear described is just ... normal life for most people ... except perhaps to the degree it is felt or needed.
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism