Scientists Warn US Will Lose a Generation of Talent (theguardian.com) 241
An anonymous reader shares a report: A generation of scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump administration's dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth, according to a Guardian investigation.
The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, as well as meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian.
The scientists warn that Trump's assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US.
The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, as well as meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian.
The scientists warn that Trump's assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US.
Eating the seed corn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that they won't even eat it, just throw it away as being useless and too small to eat.
Re:Eating the seed corn (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll throw it away to keep someone else who is starving from having it, they don't even want it for themselves.
They just don't want *those* people to have any chance of getting some of it, even if it destroys the future crops for everyone including themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
INdeed. Ant while that happens, the King sells the crown jewels to line his coffers. What a patheic showing for a nation that was once the "leader of the free world".
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is next on Trump's target to bankrupt. Given all the other businesses he's bankrupted over the decades, it seems fitting to bankrupt one more on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of eating your seed corn - it fills your belly, for the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be really dumb. Because what matters is the economic numbers for the next 10, 20, maybe 100 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eating the seed corn (Score:5, Informative)
I have no doubt wherever you live also has way too many right-wing assholes, and they are gaining ground there too.
The big difference in many countries is they use a form of voting called proportional representation, instead of first past the post used in the USA.
In the USA you either vote for the right wing Democratic part, the ultra-right wing Republican party or throw away your vote. First past the post voting leads normally leads to voters only having two choices and divides the country into us vs them.
With proportional representation any party that can pass a threshold of votes gets a voice in governing. In my country that is 5%. This means votes to less popular parties do have a voice in governing as you end up with a government of several parties. You may have one party gather more that 50% of the votes and they can then control with impunity, just like with first past the post, but often you have a coalition of parties. When you need to form coalitions then an us vs them attitude works against you and as a result parties are less extreme and more open to understand other parties view points.
To your point right-wing assholes gaining ground is a problem but under proportional representation they are less likely to rule with impunity and their influence is more moderate.
Re: (Score:3)
So good news, it won't be long until only the seeds are left.
Re:Eating the seed corn (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the answer to that is certainly not more illegal immigration. It would make more sense to simply step up work visas, that way they can immigrate legally to fill in for any labor shortages.
Those who complain about lack of worker protections, tax evasion, etc., should similarly be opposed to illegal immigration, which only serves to enable all of that. Unless you're a nutter who hates the idea of borders, lowering illegal immigration and facilitating legal immigration should be a no-brainer.
Re: Eating the seed corn (Score:2)
Re:Eating the seed corn (Score:5, Informative)
The stupid part is ICE isn't tackling illegal immigration. The administration is kicking out mostly legal immigrants, asylum seekers, people who have made even the tiniest mistake on paperwork, people who have paid taxes, in some cases people who have god damn fucking green cards.
Everyone needs to stop using the term illegal immigration. It is pandering to the fuckwits lying in the Whitehouse pretending what they are doing is anything other than what it is: white nationalist racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Asylum programs were abused in the extreme. People were showing up at the border making asylum claims and then skipping their hearings. That process broke down even further when the courts were so overwhelmed that hearing dates were pushed back to 2026 or later for people entering in 2022-2023.
If you skipped your asylum hearing, you're an illegal immigrant. If you entered the country with a bogus asylum claim, you're an illegal immigrant. If you used the CBP 1 app to enter, you now probably need to leav
Re: (Score:2)
Correction. Those who complain about illegal workers shouldn't be hiring them, which only serves to enable all of that.
Time and again, those making the loudest noises against illegals are the ones hiring them, Trump included [lawandcrime.com] as well as those who [thedailybeast.com] voted for him [rawstory.com].
Re: (Score:2)
People here legally can command higher wages and demand safe work environments. Can't have that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is not what is being discussed in the article. The total funding is still the same. Congress sets the funding, not the executive branch. They simply are not allowing the funded to be wasted by handing it out based on skin color and they are not going to fund things that they disagree with - which every administration does. All-in, according to the article, we are talking about the re-assignment of roughly $1.5B in science funding. Not exactly the end of the world for science.
The changes on the NIH gran
Re: (Score:2)
NSF funding is down 56% for grants next year, and NIH is down 40%. And if you use Hegseth's example of research that is 'wasteful', I guess you really are far down the rabbit hole. NSF's total funding is down *72%*. It's bad. Really bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of improving the process of error correction, your idea seems to be to not do Science at all, because if no peer-reviewed papers are produced, there are no peer-reviewed papers which can't be reproduced, right?
Re: (Score:3)
shutting down studies when most of of money has already been spent is just wasting huge amount of money.
Maybe, maybe not. Still depends how useful the studies are. Cutting your losses and not throwing good money after bad is actually a thing.
When they tell the truth, it is a coincidence ... (Score:2)
MAGAs seem to be anti-science, science that gave them health, education, and and a good life. ... All in the name of worshiping a King.
You don't seem to understand MAGA, you merely describe a false perception manufactured by their political opponents. Just as MAGA manufactures a false perception about their political opponents. Here's the trick for understanding politics, both sides are lying to you. You cannot assume one side is telling the truth when one side is caught lying. They both lie, at the same time usually. When they tell the truth, it is a coincidence of the truth happening to align with their politics.
Both sides are at time
Re: (Score:3)
Both sides are at times pro science and anti science,
Yes, if "at times" means "in the past, but not now." In, say, the late 60s, the hippies were somewhat anti-science. But that was fifty years ago. Right now it is the MAGA republicans who are anti science.
Nope far more recently. Immediately before covid, anti vaxers were pretty much an oddity of affluent liberals.
Or maybe, to this day, start a discussion of where nuclear power should be part of the all of the above strategy to displace fossil fuels as fast as possible.
it depends on what the scientists are working on and who benefits. Anti VAX is historically a thing among wealthy liberals for example.
No. Being anti-vaccination was never a liberal tenet.
It was absolutely a cult dominated by affluent liberals. Folks who looked to celebrities for advice. And I am not referring to RFK Jr levels of affluence, just ordinary upper middle class liberals who can afford comfortable and safe communit
No, its leaving farming ... (Score:2)
Eating the seed corn I think is the analogy here.
No, STEM is popular, left or right. The real problem is the declining popularity of STEM with respect to fields of study. The analogy would be too many people leaving the farm to become politicians or artists or "influencers". We need some of these, we just have too many going in that direction, not enough going STEM.
Not enough going into the trades either, but that seems to be correcting.
Is this a bug or a feature? Putin is happy!!! (Score:3)
Eating the seed corn I think is the analogy here. Instead of planting the corn, in hope of a prosperous bounty, we are just eating it. MAGAs seem to be anti-science, science that gave them health, education, and and a good life. They just want to eat the seed corn. All in the name of worshiping a King. You will get nothing but pain from that, and I will never, ever understand your point of view.
Honestly, most of Trump's actions do not make much sense based on his stated goals. However, they do strongly align with Putin's goals of a weakened USA. I don't know what's up with Trump. I'm sick of guessing his motivations. However, as many have stated..."I don't know if he's a Russian Asset...but if he was, I can't imagine what would be different." The USA has a long history of investing in science and research and most Americans benefitted from the results...directly or indirectly...including the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I've seen the corn that grows from a lot of those seeds. It's going to make anyone who eats it ill, so planting and eating it would not be a good idea.
American corn has been at the forefront of global corn for at least the last 100 years. It's arguably the best corn in the world. Hearing Americans trash talk their own excellent corn is just so bizarre. But even if you don't like a couple of the types of corn being grown (or it will make you sick, as you say), are you sure you should be uprooting it all? Well, in the end, it's your corn, so you can do what you want with it.
Re: Eating the seed corn (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen the corn that grows from a lot of those seeds. It's going to make anyone who eats it ill, so planting and eating it would not be a good idea.
For years American science has been the best in the world, and a large part of that is because it has been so welcoming to foreign scientists.
This is no longer true.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Make the USA unwelcoming to foreigners so it won't attract scientists from other countries.
2. Make the USA hostile to resident scientists so they will emigrate to foreign countries.
Once you have got rid of them all you won't have to deal with those guys who think things like facts matter and can get on with claiming you are number one with no one to contradict you.
Re: Eating the seed corn (Score:2)
Oh god shut the frack up you obnoxious self important clown
Wrong Solution (Score:3)
Many studies that the government foots the bill for are flatly idiotic
Ok, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that your assertion is correct. How you would fix that? The obvious approach is to revamp the grant selection process and/or provide better guidlelines and criteria for studies you want to fund. The NSF had a less and 50% success rate for grants before the cuts so it is not like they had more money that applications and just had to fund whatever came along, if they really are funding "idiotic" studies it is because they are selecting the wrong studies to f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever you think about DEI, for or against, I think it's safe to say that it objectively went too far. Let's be honest here, only a total cunt would pressure another person to put their pronouns next to their name, even if they didn't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
What company pressured people to add pronouns? Every place I've worked at was completely voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
They very likely never experienced what they describe. Conservatives caught up in the culture war rant about things that have never happened to them all the time as if they effect their lives in horrifically negative ways,
Re:It's DEI bitching (Score:5, Interesting)
What company pressured people to add pronouns? Every place I've worked at was completely voluntary.
So, I debated responding. And I may be more or less outing myself here - at least to anyone who also works at the University of Washington in STEM.
If anyone has bothered to paid attention to my history of comments, they know I am very much anti-Trump and lean somewhat liberal on most issues (although not all - and I'm certainly no rsilvergun).
However, while UW doesn't technically require it... from up and down my chain of command (as well as in several other departments where I have friends), over the past several years there have been frequent repeated attempts (typically somewhat passive-aggressive) to pressure us into doing things like list pronouns and include the stock "we're sorry we stole your land" signature add-ons. Just to pick one example - while we're never told "you absolutely must do this", we're told (repeatedly) the Chair or the Dean or some other leader "really wants and expects everyone to be doing this". Our department even announced that participation in DEI activities was becoming a required part of our annual performance review (such as participating in what was literally titled the "DEI book club") - although that requirement seems to have died shortly after January 20th.
So yeah, I am going to somewhat side with the GP - I do think there have been times where the pursuit of DEI, at least, has been taken too far.
Re: (Score:3)
For people who do not work at a large university in a liberal state- you don't really know what is going on. (I don't mean, you, I mean the people responding to you) I also work at a university (in the top 20 of research universities in the US) that is a recipient of a lot of federal grants. Diversity has been identified as the TOP priority at our university. Everything we do has to have a diversity angle to it.
Overhead on grants can be up to 50% of the award. And, since the university has identified D
Re:It's DEI bitching (Score:5, Informative)
I have a REALLY hard time to believe these numbers. I do work in a R1 university with an overhead rate of about 50% and this description seems massively misleading. The F&A rate (known as overhead rate) is about 50% for most leading universities. Mine is 54%, I just checked UW is at 55%, for reference.
The overhead rate is a percentage of allowable direct cost that will be put aside on overhead. So if you have $1 of direct cost (student salary for instance), that will incur a $0.50 of overhead. So at most 1/3 of the grant is overhead.
But not all direct cost incurs overhead. Any equipment cost usually does not generate. Tuition cost usually does not generate overhead. Participant cost (if you do a study where you pay participants) that usually does not generate overhead. in many cases undergraduate student awards are not subject to overhead.
I just checked the last 3 grants I wrote. One as 15% of its budget that is overhead. The second 23%. The last 28%. So no, half grant budgets are not going to overhead. This is not common.
Then how is that money actually spent? I was in my local committee to look at how we were spending overhead and we looked at what other universities were spending their overhead on. And no, it is not mostly going to DEI program. Because most of the money usually goes to pay for facilities. It pays for research labs, furnitures, electricity. It pays for almost everyone doing pre-award and post-award support (grant submission and grant administration). It often pays for equipment, our local HPC cluster is half paid by overhead. It pays for a lot of things. Our cloud bill is paid by overhead.
And yes, some amount of the overhead is spent to kick start research efforts. Maybe some of that goes to DEI research. But I'm ready to bet it is not more than 10% of the overhead. Because most universities return a significant fraction of their overhead to the research departments, in many cases directly to the PIs on the grant. I get 15% of the overhead on my grants back to me.
So no, "When you get a $5M grant, $2.5M goes to DEI effort" is complete bullshit!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest here, only a total cunt would pressure another person to put their pronouns next to their name, even if they didn't want to.
What's wrong with you that putting "he" next to your name is some horribly oppressive thing? You are WAY too caught up in this culture war bullshit if that's some kind of line in the sand that cant be crossed.
I also doubt you've ever experienced this as any kind of mandatory thing.
Re: It's DEI bitching (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in order to escape the terror of the pronouns the republic had to be burned down and the earth salted.
Great job snowflake!
Re: It's DEI bitching (Score:2)
Wait until you find out what science says about DEI, not that you ever will find out, because you're a coward.
Human resource (Score:5, Insightful)
The greatest resource a country holds is its human resource. Especially a population at a prime working age. They produce more than they consume (which is why businesses are able to hire people and still make money). And the skilled labor of this age are a golden resource for any nation.
Now look at it from the perspective of another country wanting to take on immigrants from the US. That country didn't have to pay to support and feed that person through childhood. That country didn't spent a dime educating them. And generally they get the people who were successful enough to complete college and didn't get bogged down by bad circumstances in life. They will be skimming the cream off the top for themselves, and there's nothing the Trump Administration can do about it.
Re: Human resource (Score:2)
"They will be skimming the cream off the top for themselves, and there's nothing the Trump Administration can do about it."
Except deny them passports, of course, which is obvious to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are valuable enough they will give you a temp one so you can fly.
They want skilled immigrants ... (Score:2)
The greatest resource a country holds is its human resource. Especially a population at a prime working age. They produce more than they consume (which is why businesses are able to hire people and still make money). And the skilled labor of this age are a golden resource for any nation.
And "MAGA" believes this too. Note they and the President want skilled immigrants. They want foreign STEM grads to stay in the USA. "MAGA" and the President are against classrooms getting increasingly political, they are happy with the professors teaching actual math and science. Its when politics intrudes they get upset.
And the truth is politics ruins everything it touches. Even STEM. Best to keep the politics out of math and science, whether the politics of the left or right. Either ruins the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Bwahahahahahaha you seriously believe this?!
Students welcome to join "melting pot" (Score:2)
Bwahahahahahaha you seriously believe this?!
It is reality. And vetting the student to make sure they are not a supporter of a terrorist organization like Hamas does not change this. Nor that a student is not acting as an agent of a foreign government collecting confidential intellectual property or research. Students not engaged in such activities, who want to join the American "melting pot" are welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah establishing an immigration gestapo force and constantly being in the news (and bragging about it!) for how harsh and brutal the coming immigration crackdown and engaging in thought policing is overall just super welcoming to the best and brightest out there in the world. All this performative cruelty is just really gonna continue to make America look fantastic on the world stage.
Basically a shirt towards merit based immigration (Score:2)
Essentially we're talking about a shift towards merit based immigration. Which is the norm in much of the modern liberal developed world. Does the US still need temporary foreign labor. For example in agriculture. Yes, we should reform the process to
Re: (Score:3)
... and border staff physically abusing people from allied countries when they enter the country.
What are you referring to?
What is there that remains that is positive about going to the USA that is enough to risk going thru that?
Unless you are going to publicly support a terrorist organization, or engage in racist harassment of your fellow students, you are at zero risk. And what risk would you be under? You'd be sent home.
I have often been to the USA and one thing you notice is the media only reports internal stuff. I'm guessing these recent news posts didn't get feature there:
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/world-news/man-refused-entry-us-border-31925059
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14630155/reason-two-hawaii-tourists-jailed-deported.html
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/travel-news/eight-kiwis-detained-at-us-border-since-november-mfat-reminds-travell
Re: (Score:3)
They want foreign STEM grads to stay in the USA.
Then maybe don't revoke visas, wasting incoming student's time and money. It tends to have a chilling effect when word gets out that the US government is going to use you as a political pawn to pressure places like Harvard University to toe-the-line.
And the truth is politics ruins everything it touches. Even STEM. Best to keep the politics out of math and science, whether the politics of the left or right. Either ruins the science.
Craven ambition ruins everything.
Politics are integral to human society, it always has been, long before anyone ever organized a formal government.
You can't really erase the humanity from science and mathematics and expect it to still have meaning, purpose, or d
For some, all that matters is power (Score:3)
If the results produced by science threaten power or wealth, science must be destroyed
Re: (Score:2)
Not only one (Score:4, Insightful)
The mere risk of this crap happeing again will make anybody with real talent go look fro greener patures. That is, if this crap gets fixed after Trump expires. Which is in no way certain.
22 years old and still relevant (Score:2)
This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t [theonion.com]
That's pretty much this admins response to any of the visible and possible downsides to their actions.
Make America a shithole (Score:2, Troll)
Let's get rid of our labor.
Let's get rid of our brainpower.
Let's get rid of our government.
Let's get rid of our healthcare.
Let's get rid of our due process.
Let's get rid of our financial strength.
I'd write more of what we're getting rid of, but too depressed.
Re:Make America a shithole (Score:4, Funny)
Let's get rid of our labor. Let's get rid of our brainpower. Let's get rid of our government. Let's get rid of our healthcare. Let's get rid of our due process. Let's get rid of our financial strength.
I'd write more of what we're getting rid of, but too depressed.
It's OK though. Big tech is going to provide us with artificial friends to distract us from how empty and meaningless life will be once we've gotten rid of everything that matters.
Luckily... (Score:5)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that parades help, too. Let's not leave those out.
Welcome to third world status (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Third world might be an overstatement, but the clown car seems to be in no danger of running out of passengers,
No point in getting stressed over each turn of the wheel. Instead, look at it like you bought a ticket to "Jackass", make some popcorn, and revel in the schadenfreude.
Re: (Score:2)
The stupid are in control.
Stupid, or... Putin's puppets? I found the theory about Krasnov more and more plausible as we get more and more thse kinds of "destruction of the empire" actions.
Damn! (Score:3)
And to think that our army of gender studies graduates was only a trillion dollars away from unlocking the secrets of male menstruation.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden ran for office in 2024? (Score:2)
From the fine article...
Almost 60% of the projects abandoned are in states which voted for Joe Biden in 2024, Guardian analysis found.
A sentence like that makes me suspicious about any analysis in the fine article. First, I'm pretty sure Biden wasn't running against Trump in 2024. Second, "almost 60%" can easily be explained as a statistical anomaly.
How many states voted Democrat in 2024? Just short of half, and they were states with a high population. Since there's more people in these states there's a higher chance that if projects were abandoned at random, and all else was equal, then they'd get more than ha
Re: (Score:2)
The first part of the article... (Score:2)
The first part of The Guardian article put the onus on the racial part of DEI, which gives the false impression this concerns only minorities and is thus unumportant. It also puts the onus on specific topics of academic research which give the -again, false- impression that it touches "those left-wing topics" and is thus not that bad.
But i have talked with other researchers and it is absolutely everyone who is in the crosshairs. Grants for Ph.D and postdocs for subjects that sound as politically safe as the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're dealing with a cult.
No, you're not dealing with a cult.
The cult is dealing with you.
Re:It's always about what you want to pay for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is a "National Science Foundation" really necessary? I'm far from convinced it is.
Count the fundamental discoveries fully financed by private business and report back.
And counting Bell Labs is questionable (Score:4, Insightful)
Bell Labs (cosmic microwave background radiation, among other things) did its best work while it was a state-authorized monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bell Labs (cosmic microwave background radiation, among other things)
I'm sorry what?
It was first speculated by a Belgian working in academia.
It was shown that it could be an indication of the big bang by an American researcher at Caltech.
It's prediction was corrected by two people working at John Hopkins.
It was postulated as measurable by two Soviets working in academia.
Finally a private company measured it (didn't discover, didn't do any fundamental research predicting it, but simply measured it) using ... a piece of equipment developed at MIT, another university with gover
Re: (Score:2)
"those goals seem to be nearly impossible to attain"
Is it impossible to obtain - the national ethos sees absolutely no problem with the unbounded consolidation of wealth and power, so long as it is in the private sector.
The joke is the private sector is so powerful at this point, your public sector is just a sock with the private sector's hand up its ass.
That'll never change as long as the concept of even moderate, reasonable redistribution of wealth is a national non-starter. It's impressive watching the w
Re: (Score:3)
Also I love the idea of the "wise and infallible private sector whose invisible hand we shan't interfere with" contrasted with "let's pour eleventy trillion dollars into crypto, VR, metaverse and AI chatbots"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What's deeply disappointing is how those goals seem to be nearly impossible to attain.
This is because the federal budget is basically built out of sacred cows. Every line item that ends up there was lobbied HARD for, and whoever lobbied for it will complain loudly if you gore their sacred cow.
Re:It's always about what you want to pay for.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Will Americans just stop researching anything because this big, Federally funded agency goes away?
American's and private industry will research what is profitable and the goal of government is to align that incentive with that of some vision of public good and when there are circumstances where that does not or cannot happen then the role of the state is to step and fulfill that.
How many public AND private schools of higher education do we have in America today?
And so many of both of them had support from the NSF to do that research especially at the base level which is where a lot of businesses get started, with ideas explored through university research from NSF grants who can spend money more speculatively. When you look at the economic activity the NSF created over long timescales it is wildly profitable, not "big spending". It's investment, we all know aht investment means right? All education is investment, in your people.
Easiest example is pretty much all of our planetary science. Was there a profit incentive in sending Pioneer and Voyager probes to out the outer reaches? No, the government would have had to create it anyway so what private company would have done it just on their own in 197X? None is the answer.
Yes, the entire rest of the civilized world ALSO does scientific research and there's nothing I see wrong with learning from properly done research that comes from Germany or Japan or China or anyplace else?
This is from the party of "American Exceptionalism" folks.
This patriotic "need" for America to always be the world leader is a hugely expensive undertaking that doesn't necessarily justify how heavily the citizens get taxed to fund it.
They say from their comfortable, wealthy position in a nation and a period of never before seen peace in history that undertaking has provided them for their entire life built on the sacrifice of previous generations to do better than the one before. That's just bullshit now right? Yeah I guess so. I guess we just got bored with things so let's just fuck it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm far from your typical "Trump supporter" ... Is a "National Science Foundation" really necessary? I'm far from convinced it is..
I don't know. Do you like modern medicine?
Re: (Score:2)
You will get a first class demonstration as to why libertarian small government utopia is but a fantasy.
Capitalism and markets don't just arise as humanity's natural state. They are created by strong government through the enforcement of contract law and by creating a level playing field. Public R&D serves as a multiplier generating far more wealth down the line then what has to be invested up front.
Anyhow, enjoy your age of austerity.
Re: (Score:3)
Is a "National Science Foundation" really necessary?
This is the dumbest thing I have read here in a decade. And this is slashdot, so that is hard bar to cross.
There are other ways to structure the research and education effort in the country. But right now this the way that we have. If you cut it without replacing it, you will crash the system.
There is currently no plan to replace this. NSF (along with NIH and DOE) has been paying for decades for almost all basic research in the country. That basic research has literally been the basis for every technology t
Re: It's always about what you want to pay for.... (Score:3)
DEI is the center position for the pendulum. The extremes are whites only and no whites. Certain racist shitlords have convinced the median dumbshit that DEI is an extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone agrees with your assessment:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05... [npr.org]
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So much winning! https://tradingeconomics.com/u... [tradingeconomics.com]
The US economy contracted at an annualized rate of 0.5% in Q1 2025, a sharper decline than the second estimate of a 0.2% drop and the first quarterly contraction in three years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
Too bad you haven't read any studies about the impact of DEI on scientific output, despite your opinion that you know or care about science.
Re: (Score:2)
So, specifically, from which scientific fields will we lose all of this talent,
All of them. PhD candidates will sit back and light up a joint. Years later, they will awaken with bald spots, long gray ponytails, wearing tie-dyed tee-shirts and find their still uncompleted dissertation in the typewriter.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
So, specifically, from which scientific fields will we lose all of this talent, and to which countries will these people be moving?
Errr, many of them? I'm not sure why you think the USA is the only place that does science. It's dominance in the scientific field is actually an incredibly recent event given human development since the age of enlightenment. To answer your question directly: UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and to a far lesser extent Canada. These are all places which are heavily funding science. Hell Aix-Marseille University has received so many applications from American scientists this year that they had to cap their research program - a first this century for a university that normally actively markets to American scientists with incentives to come over.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, it's DEI bullshit that's being cut here.
57% of NSF's budget has been cut. If you think that 57% of what NSF does is "DEI", then there's no use arguing with you.
NSF grants generally run for three years. So, another way of looking at this is that funding no new awards this year at all saves you 33% of the budget. And whack half of last year's awards before they finish. Then let the ones on their final year finish up to get results.
Also note that NSF has been kicked out of its offices (HUD's taking the building over), so they're going to have a
Re: (Score:2)
So, specifically, from which scientific fields will we lose all of this talent
Microbiology, neuroscience, solid physics, particle physics, robotics, ...
and to which countries will these people be moving?
Canada, England, France, Germany, Switzerland, primarily. Portugal has gone on a hiring spree, as has Poland and Australia. I haven't seen any postings from Spain or Italy, but maybe that's my field.
Further, in what ways will the NSF counterparts in these supposed other countries benefit R&D by foreign researchers?
I guess you don't understand how IP works. When a researcher works at an institution, the IP they generate is owned by that institution. The society where that institution is located typically is the big winner, as a result. Have you e
Re: (Score:2)