Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 16,848
- 8,167
- 32
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Actually, that works in liquid, not on paper.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Trump fired the entire National Science Board yesterday!
- Thread starter dlamberth
- Start date
Actually, that works in liquid, not on paper.
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,632
- 52,861
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,972
- 51,351
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
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)
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
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.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,213
- 18,857
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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 ideologiesFinally, 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.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
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.
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!
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,632
- 52,861
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,632
- 52,861
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,972
- 51,351
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
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.
Upvote
0
PhantomGaze
Carry on my wayward son.
- Aug 16, 2012
- 415
- 110
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
As I understand it, this isn't anti-intellectual so much as a response to perceived ideological conquest. The quoted Democratic response called it stupid, and insisted it would harm advancement, but this is simply what one would expect an ideological opponent to say.
I didn't vote for Trump. I'm not a big MAGA guy, but I think their actions in terms of trying to reacquire some control of institutional power from a largely left-wing seizure of academia is pretty obvious.
It's a pretty natural thing to see someone who was elected by conservatives take actions against counter-ideological control. It's also a pretty natural thing for those losing control to frame it negatively.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,972
- 51,351
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
They are not replacing scientific experts with scientific experts they like better. They are replacing scientific experts with political operatives.
Upvote
0
PhantomGaze
Carry on my wayward son.
- Aug 16, 2012
- 415
- 110
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I wasn't aware that there was anything set in stone yet as for board replacements. Iirc, they wanted some senate confirmation.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,972
- 51,351
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
I don't believe there have been any nominations since the April dismissal of the entire board. The proposed OMB rule would put the role of grant approval into the hands of political appointees. The Board is no longer necessary in this scheme.
Upvote
0
PhantomGaze
Carry on my wayward son.
- Aug 16, 2012
- 415
- 110
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I don't doubt it will be pretty delayed because they're trying to restructure, but to eliminate the board permanently they'd have to amend, or repeal the NSF act. Even with grant funding under political control there's other advisory roles for the board.
Also, fwiw, the site for the NSB still says "Pending new appointments."
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 48,972
- 51,351
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
While true, a board with statutory existence but with no members can't do anything.
There are other bodies that can't act because they have no quorum after Trump firings. The FEC commissioners haven't been able to do anything since May of last year.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 26,213
- 18,857
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Your understanding is incorrect. The "perceived ideological conquest" imagine by these "Trump officials" is at best a delusion, and more likely, a false claim.
Since there is not "ideological conquest", the response from scientific organizations (we don't need Democratc operatives to clarify it for us) is correct.
This isn't about "academia", it is about science. Science is fact based, not ideology based. There is no barrier to political ideologies in science.
It wasn't political until Trump/Vought made it political.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
I was drafting a similar response to @PhantomGaze . Yours is more incisive and has the additional advantage of coming from a practising scientist rather than just someone who attempts to think scientifically. Thank you.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
