HN Reader

It is pretty much clear that the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it. There is no reason apart from that.

People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that.

While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, there is no data or research (duh!) showing the impact of reduced public research.

From what we have seen so far this will make things worse - because for one private research is going to biased. It happens today but public research can counter that. Later there will be no defense. Like MAHA report making up BS sources using AI to push its agenda.

The irony in all of this is - the man pushing ivermectin during a pandemic - one of the biggest replication issue if not the big one - is telling others how to do research and people are defending him.

I'm OOTL, but there _is_ a ton of waste when it comes to money we give out.

The article itself even says here:

> [...] the US government has cut scientific grants to academics working on diversity-related topics, halted biomedical grants to international partners, and demanded universities shut down academic units that “belittle” conservative ideas [...]

I'd say it's fair to question if taxpayers should be paying for "diversity related projects." The "belittle conservative ideas" thing is problematic, as that is totally subjective. However, I don't think anyone can say in good faith that most universities aren't incredibly bias. Having been in one circa 2020, it was not a welcoming place if you weren't firmly liberal/progressive. Of course I have to place my disclaimer that I'm not a fan of what Trump is doing, or the man himself for that matter.

All I can say is let us all hope this is merely the American decade of humiliation and not the beginning of the American century of humiliation.

It's not just science, all sorts of conferences and other group gatherings are actively avoiding meeting in the US to avoid difficulties for international travelers.

What an embarrassing era for America.

Sad state of affairs that this gets flagged. Any critical coverage of the American regime is censored.

"says chief EU research diplomat" -- leaving off half the sentence sure does change the quote.

I always feel weird reading statements from the EU regarding this relationship. There's always talk of the U.S abandoning it's position, guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation. Cut off the U.S from the research? Retaliatory tariffs? Why is the U.S leaving NATO a concern for the EU, but not a concern for the U.S? The fact that these are not the top talking points makes me think the U.S isn't entirely wrong in their approach.

I recently read "Chip War" and it talked about an era (around the 80s and 90s) were american dominance on electronics (and economy) seemed in deep decline.

Japan was the next big thing.

But the collective efforts of some government agencies, academia and the private sector helped reverse the trend.

American dominance is sure not a given but with an almost century of inertia, all hope is not lost (especially compared to the alternative).

Related:

The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46355077

"we're gonna beat China by investing nothing"

It’ll be interesting to see how this shakes out in the next 3 years or so.

It sounds more like a parroting of a popular sentiment as a conclusion, rather than providing a data-based assessment. What are the numbers? What's the real impact? How much lead does USA have over it's nearest competition?

For a country thats whole personallity is "winning" and that lates losers, The USA is very good a setting itself up to lose every race.

"In a parting shot before her retirement, the European Commission’s top science diplomat has castigated the US for destroying its reputation as a global scientific leader.

...

Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation.

...

The next programme, which starts in 2028, will also be more focused on European defence technology and industrial strength, raising questions over how welcome non-European partners will be, particularly in sensitive projects."

I am inclined to agree with her conclusion. But this is a political statement by a European diplomat selling her programme and asking for funds.

We can find better sources for documenting what’s happening. There is even nascent progress in measuring the harm.

Why is this flagged?

> Signe Ratso, who is in charge of negotiating global access to the EU’s €93.5 billion Horizon Europe research and innovation programme

My thoughts after witnessing Horizon Europe in action when I worked at a hardware/materials research-ish company in Sweden:

- So much pork, so much product concept cosplay.

- All of these grandiose pointless abstract "projects".

- Gotta have like 10+ institutions/companies from lots of different countries involved in each grandiose project, leading to insane overheads.

Just give the institutions/companies (demand equity?) funds instead - stop with the stupid cosplay.

Europe needs to be smarter than the US in how to make this more efficient. Right now that shouldn't that hard.

I'm tired of all the breathless handwringing. I'm sure that science in the US will be just fine without all the extravagant waste.

The US might remain a leader country in science and other fields for many more years. The problem is that fewer persons will participate at this (due to less research positions, company lay offs, replacing AI, tariffs and other similar reasons). And this is bad for the people more than the country.

Countries shouldn't have outsourced all research and development to the US, hope they all notice this wasn't a good plan and that they all need to get back to it right now.