I trust Jessica and Roger. But no one has given a rational, answer or proposed system that would justify the Federal government from being a part of any scientific community. I see, this will be better maybe, or this could be better. There is no better with the government involved. It disappoints me that there are many brilliant people in science but they can’t come up with the answer. The problem is trying to get anyone to take what is good for the system but not so good for the one proposing the answer.
Question: How does one remove the government from government funded programs of any kind? The NSF was created by government and has always been funded by the government - so…?
As Trump has shown, just stop giving them money. It is important, they will find the funding necessary. It’s called capitalism. Legislation to stop all funding of non essential non governmental responsibilities for future reference.
Sure - but virtually all modern nations fund scientific research, and in the US, the government is the largest single source of funding. Turning off that spigot is unlikely, but getting as much of the funding shifted to private sources might well be workable but very difficult to achieve. And this will of course be a major political battle of many against many on many fronts.
An older guy like me. That was the old system that got this country and world into the terrible mess prior to Trump. If you voted for Trump. I didn’t believe the world prior to Trump was a good place to be, certainly not what it could be and the weak/ feckless progressives, liberals, socialists, whatever they are called, would never make it any better. I believed it could be much better and voted for change, complete change. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs as they say.
I am close to starting my 72nd year, so I likely also qualify as an ‘older guy’. But my perspective maybe somewhat different than yours. Government funding of science research has been a major contributor to the improvements seen in our world today as compared to the world into which I was born. Improving our current scientific culture and how it is funded - mitigation and reformation - is necessary, but what human systems never go astray…? I agree that things need to be better, and some - not all - of the administration’s interventions are likely to help.
Science has become politicized and a hazard in most of the issues politicians use them for. Climate change, covid etc. It is more dangerous than ever and can't even come close to what you remember. No, it can't be fixed as long as it is tied to government because government uses it to advance agendas and not knowledge. And science not only allows it to happen, but actively and maliciously suppress differing thought. The essence of science. In other words, science, in cases involving government is not science. It becomes propaganda.
Well, the pendulum swings..usually too far. Its defenders will point to the heavy politisation since ( roughly) 2007 and generally since the 1960s. They feel that road needs to be blocked first. Science has ALWAYS had a political element. One can strive for pure science. I wish it was that easy. This does not mean i support Trump's actions. I am merely playing Devil's advocate..
There's been a lot of attention and warnings surrounding government funding of scientific research and the potential for politicization. I think government’s will have need for research in a particular area to answer questions decision makers might have to help inform policy. For government funding to be explicitly directed to deal with an issue of policy significance makes sense to me. I sometimes get the impression that scientists consider themselves either above responding to the needs of society or that societal needs are for them to determine because they exist in a class unsullied by politics. Just give scientists the money and they'll decide what they’re going to do with it seems to be view some scientists subscribe to. Where that system failed in my view was in the climate realm and I blame the scientists themselves, or at least those involved in disseminating research grants and filling research positions for most of what happened. Admittedly they did it under the approving eye of Democratic politicians, but it's not clear to me that those politicians were ordering specific results. What those politicians likely did do was place scientists of a certain view on climate in powerful positions to control the dissemination of grant money.
“There's been a lot of attention and warnings surrounding government funding of scientific research and the potential for politicization.”
It isn’t potential - it is unavoidable. Government is by nature political, and government funding cannot be separated from politics. The trade offs involved must work to promote objectivity, independence, and reliability, but even these sorts of efforts will entail political concessions and compromises.
I trust Jessica and Roger. But no one has given a rational, answer or proposed system that would justify the Federal government from being a part of any scientific community. I see, this will be better maybe, or this could be better. There is no better with the government involved. It disappoints me that there are many brilliant people in science but they can’t come up with the answer. The problem is trying to get anyone to take what is good for the system but not so good for the one proposing the answer.
Question: How does one remove the government from government funded programs of any kind? The NSF was created by government and has always been funded by the government - so…?
As Trump has shown, just stop giving them money. It is important, they will find the funding necessary. It’s called capitalism. Legislation to stop all funding of non essential non governmental responsibilities for future reference.
Sure - but virtually all modern nations fund scientific research, and in the US, the government is the largest single source of funding. Turning off that spigot is unlikely, but getting as much of the funding shifted to private sources might well be workable but very difficult to achieve. And this will of course be a major political battle of many against many on many fronts.
An older guy like me. That was the old system that got this country and world into the terrible mess prior to Trump. If you voted for Trump. I didn’t believe the world prior to Trump was a good place to be, certainly not what it could be and the weak/ feckless progressives, liberals, socialists, whatever they are called, would never make it any better. I believed it could be much better and voted for change, complete change. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs as they say.
I am close to starting my 72nd year, so I likely also qualify as an ‘older guy’. But my perspective maybe somewhat different than yours. Government funding of science research has been a major contributor to the improvements seen in our world today as compared to the world into which I was born. Improving our current scientific culture and how it is funded - mitigation and reformation - is necessary, but what human systems never go astray…? I agree that things need to be better, and some - not all - of the administration’s interventions are likely to help.
Science has become politicized and a hazard in most of the issues politicians use them for. Climate change, covid etc. It is more dangerous than ever and can't even come close to what you remember. No, it can't be fixed as long as it is tied to government because government uses it to advance agendas and not knowledge. And science not only allows it to happen, but actively and maliciously suppress differing thought. The essence of science. In other words, science, in cases involving government is not science. It becomes propaganda.
As Trump has shown, just stop giving them money. Legislation to stop all funding of non essential non governmental responsibilities.
Well, the pendulum swings..usually too far. Its defenders will point to the heavy politisation since ( roughly) 2007 and generally since the 1960s. They feel that road needs to be blocked first. Science has ALWAYS had a political element. One can strive for pure science. I wish it was that easy. This does not mean i support Trump's actions. I am merely playing Devil's advocate..
There's been a lot of attention and warnings surrounding government funding of scientific research and the potential for politicization. I think government’s will have need for research in a particular area to answer questions decision makers might have to help inform policy. For government funding to be explicitly directed to deal with an issue of policy significance makes sense to me. I sometimes get the impression that scientists consider themselves either above responding to the needs of society or that societal needs are for them to determine because they exist in a class unsullied by politics. Just give scientists the money and they'll decide what they’re going to do with it seems to be view some scientists subscribe to. Where that system failed in my view was in the climate realm and I blame the scientists themselves, or at least those involved in disseminating research grants and filling research positions for most of what happened. Admittedly they did it under the approving eye of Democratic politicians, but it's not clear to me that those politicians were ordering specific results. What those politicians likely did do was place scientists of a certain view on climate in powerful positions to control the dissemination of grant money.
“There's been a lot of attention and warnings surrounding government funding of scientific research and the potential for politicization.”
It isn’t potential - it is unavoidable. Government is by nature political, and government funding cannot be separated from politics. The trade offs involved must work to promote objectivity, independence, and reliability, but even these sorts of efforts will entail political concessions and compromises.
This is a good summary of the problem. Wish the right people would read it.