Trump fired the entire National Science Board yesterday!

AV1611VET said:

Litmus paper.

Click to expand...

Actually, that works in liquid, not on paper.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Actually, that works in liquid, not on paper.

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks.

Section 200.205—Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals​

OMB proposes to revise § 200.205 to strengthen requirements for agency merit review and to establish a new pre-issuance review process consistent with Executive Order 14332. Under the proposed requirements for pre-issuance review, as part of the broader merit review process, agencies must ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest. Consistent with the Executive order, senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating proposals. These principles include ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President's policy priorities, prohibit the use of funds for discriminatory or otherwise impermissible purposes, and emphasize ensuring compliance with applicable law. Additionally, the proposed revisions encourage agencies to broaden the range of recipients, prioritize institutions demonstrating rigorous and reproducible scholarship, incorporate benchmarks for measuring performance of “Gold Standard Science,” [what is it?] and direct agencies to weigh institutional commitment to research integrity when making award decisions.

Political appointees will be making the decisions, if the OMB gets its way.

Hat tip to...

Summary of Key Changes in OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule​

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)​

2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))​

3. “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)​

10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies​

11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)​

12. Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be “Necessary” (§200.454)​

14. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)​

essentialsaltes said:

Section 200.205—Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals​

OMB proposes to revise § 200.205 to strengthen requirements for agency merit review and to establish a new pre-issuance review process consistent with Executive Order 14332. Under the proposed requirements for pre-issuance review, as part of the broader merit review process, agencies must ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest. Consistent with the Executive order, senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating proposals. These principles include ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President's policy priorities, prohibit the use of funds for discriminatory or otherwise impermissible purposes, and emphasize ensuring compliance with applicable law. Additionally, the proposed revisions encourage agencies to broaden the range of recipients, prioritize institutions demonstrating rigorous and reproducible scholarship, incorporate benchmarks for measuring performance of “Gold Standard Science,” [what is it?] and direct agencies to weigh institutional commitment to research integrity when making award decisions.

Political appointees will be making the decisions, if the OMB gets its way.

Hat tip to...

Summary of Key Changes in OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule​

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)​

2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))​

3. “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)​

10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies​

11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)​

12. Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be “Necessary” (§200.454)​

14. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)​

Click to expand...

If the objective is to contribute to the destruction of humanity's future, then you have to give grudging admiration to the brilliance of the planned mechanisms for achieving the goal. If there is some other intent, then a massive raspberry is the appropriate response.

essentialsaltes said:

Section 200.205—Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals​

OMB proposes to revise § 200.205 to strengthen requirements for agency merit review and to establish a new pre-issuance review process consistent with Executive Order 14332. Under the proposed requirements for pre-issuance review, as part of the broader merit review process, agencies must ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest. Consistent with the Executive order, senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating proposals. These principles include ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President's policy priorities, prohibit the use of funds for discriminatory or otherwise impermissible purposes, and emphasize ensuring compliance with applicable law. Additionally, the proposed revisions encourage agencies to broaden the range of recipients, prioritize institutions demonstrating rigorous and reproducible scholarship, incorporate benchmarks for measuring performance of “Gold Standard Science,” [what is it?] and direct agencies to weigh institutional commitment to research integrity when making award decisions.

Political appointees will be making the decisions, if the OMB gets its way.

Hat tip to...

Click to expand...

I saw the "headline" change earlier and that was not great, but seemed to be what agencies were already doing. Some of this looks an attempt to "codify" the quiet practices into written policy. Much of the rest of it will make it worse than what is the current state.

essentialsaltes said:

Summary of Key Changes in OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule​

1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)​

Click to expand...

It's kind of clear this is already happening. Grant awards have been drastically slowed at nearly all agencies. Some of that has been attributed to review by politicals.

essentialsaltes said:

2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))​

Click to expand...

This is a blatant insult to those of us who spent our precious time to provide our expert advice to the funding agencies.

essentialsaltes said:

3. “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)​

​

Click to expand...

It is all pablum. It's like some moron read a list of things ideal science does and assumed that we're all just too dumb or corrupt to not have already been doing them all. I have no idea how the "metrics" could even be crafted.

essentialsaltes said:

10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies

Click to expand...

OMB is a budget and accounting policy agency. They are not god-kings of the Executive Branch. They do not have the power to override law.

essentialsaltes said:

11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)​

Click to expand...

Not all conferences relevant to a project can be known at the time the proposal is written. The ones that are often not the most useful ones (big national conferences, etc.).


Some of these are just putting down in writing what the Trump Administration has been doing without saying like these (one presumes this is because they think it exempts them from FPA violations in lawsuits):

5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)​

Not only can you not research if non-het/cis people actually exist, but all programs related to underrepesented (discriminated against) persons are verboten.

8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational “Affiliations” (§200.206)​

19. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants​

(also a OMB power grab)

17. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice (§200.204)​

(So much for public notification laws.)

15. New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)​

I don't think you could do that anyway with federal funds, but they are also trying to reclassify climate science (a whole sub-branch of earth sciences) as divisive ideologies


Finally, even after all of that hot garbage we get to the bottom of the barrel:

13. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)​

How do they think things get published? Oh, wait, I'm sure they don't want any science published. I know a volcano they can go walking about inside of.

Methinks the NSF has done its job.

No use resurrecting a dead horse.

Hans Blaster said:

OMB is a budget and accounting policy agency. They are not god-kings of the Executive Branch. They do not have the power to override law

Click to expand...

My impression is that the current administration do not consider any law relevant if it interferes with their desires, hence they have the power to do whatever they wish.

Hans Blaster said:

How do they think things get published? Oh, wait, I'm sure they don't want any science published. I know a volcano they can go walking about inside of.

Click to expand...

Had I pursued my original life plan I would have studied the geochemistry of certain aspects of volcanicity. I certainly don't want a poor defenceless basalt, or andesite magma corrupted by any of that lot!

Hans Blaster said:

I saw the "headline" change earlier and that was not great, but seemed to be what agencies were already doing. Some of this looks an attempt to "codify" the quiet practices into written policy. Much of the rest of it will make it worse than what is the current state.

It's kind of clear this is already happening. Grant awards have been drastically slowed at nearly all agencies. Some of that has been attributed to review by politicals.

This is a blatant insult to those of us who spent our precious time to provide our expert advice to the funding agencies.

It is all pablum. It's like some moron read a list of things ideal science does and assumed that we're all just too dumb or corrupt to not have already been doing them all. I have no idea how the "metrics" could even be crafted.

OMB is a budget and accounting policy agency. They are not god-kings of the Executive Branch. They do not have the power to override law.

Not all conferences relevant to a project can be known at the time the proposal is written. The ones that are often not the most useful ones (big national conferences, etc.).


Some of these are just putting down in writing what the Trump Administration has been doing without saying like these (one presumes this is because they think it exempts them from FPA violations in lawsuits):

5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)​

Not only can you not research if non-het/cis people actually exist, but all programs related to underrepesented (discriminated against) persons are verboten.

8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational “Affiliations” (§200.206)​

19. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants​

(also a OMB power grab)

17. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice (§200.204)​

(So much for public notification laws.)

15. New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)​

I don't think you could do that anyway with federal funds, but they are also trying to reclassify climate science (a whole sub-branch of earth sciences) as divisive ideologies


Finally, even after all of that hot garbage we get to the bottom of the barrel:

13. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)​

How do they think things get published? Oh, wait, I'm sure they don't want any science published. I know a volcano they can go walking about inside of.

Click to expand...

I'll have to update my anti-intellectualism against science thread as these days it is much more systematic.

sjastro said:

I'll have to update my anti-intellectualism against science thread as these days it is much more systematic.

Click to expand...

I'm against rock music, but I don't know a treble from a cleff.

Not to mention the fact that I can neither read nor write music, don't know one note from another, don't know alto from soprano, and unless a song is sung first so I can hear it, I would have no idea how it goes.

Some keys on a piano are white, some are black, pianos have some kind of foot pedal for some reason, and it's all Greek to me.

But I'm against rock and roll.

Do I qualify for musical anti-intellectualism?

AV1611VET said:

I'm against rock music, but I don't know a treble from a cleff.

Not to mention the fact that I can neither read nor write music, don't know one note from another, don't know alto from soprano, and unless a song is sung first so I can hear it, I would have no idea how it goes.

Some keys on a piano are white, some are black, pianos have some kind of foot pedal for some reason, and it's all Greek to me.

But I'm against rock and roll.

Do I qualify for musical anti-intellectualism?

Click to expand...

No you qualify as an idiot.

sjastro said:

No you qualify as an idiot.

Click to expand...

You just made my day!

essentialsaltes said:

Section 200.205—Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals​

Summary of Key Changes in OMB’s Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule​

Click to expand...

Analysis from ars technica

Proposed new US funding rules: We can cancel any grant at any time​

Peer review now optional, political staff would screen grants for forbidden topics.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn’t in the “national interest.” The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

It is, in short, a recipe for how the government can finish the job of crippling American science.