1980s massive sci funding due to “Star Wars” defense program and funding revolutions in computer tech, pharma, public health, telecom, etc. Regan and both Bushes blew up their budgets, ran huge deficits forcing Clinton and Obama into making budget cuts to clean up their messes. So yeah, nominally the article may be true but the history is important.

> The analysis showed that when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, the average science and research account received approximately $150 million more in funding than when Democrats held the majority.

Yes, because when the Dems hold the majority, the Republicans filibuster or threaten government shutdowns to force painful cuts.

At the end of TFA is a link to the source study at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adx5154

To be honest, the source study's graph of funding in particular makes me take this entire article with a giant grain of salt.

The line graph of funding over time looks to me like there's a huge drop-off of scientific funding during the stagflation era under Carter, followed by linearly-increasing funding until the 2008 financial crisis, whereby funding is again cut sharply, then returns to an upward trajectory. Any relation to which party had Congressional or White House control appears to be immaterial.

Historically republicans aren’t exactly fiscal hawks once they have complete power. But they force cuts when they control one chamber of congress.

> A sweeping 40-year analysis of United States government spending reveals that federal science and research programs received more funding when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives and the presidency.

Well, the current batch of Republicans is working hard to make sure that this observation will no longer be true in the future...

> The study has some limitations. The analysis identifies a strong association between party control and funding levels, but it cannot definitively prove a cause-and-effect relationship. The 40-year period studied offers limited instances of shifts in political control, which can make it difficult to isolate the precise impact of any single factor. The authors also caution that their findings are historical and may not predict future trends, especially given recent shifts in political rhetoric around science. They note that the observed historical support from Republicans is not a guarantee of future funding priorities.

Understatement of the year.

It’s hard to figure out who is the audience for this study. A hypothetical high-information voter can’t use this study to conclude “If I value science funding, I should vote for Republicans.” A low-or-middle information voter doesn’t care.

Possibly make-work for graduate students?

> Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management

They’re an MBA school, they don’t even have a political science department, what is this?

Can we bring this back?

Not this year.

I mean is this kind of thing really convincing?

The side that thinks vaccines are a hoax, RFK Jr discovered the cause of autism, wants to burn up satellites we’ve already paid for because the carbon numbers are bad, suggested injecting bleach (remember that?), stared at the solar eclipse, constantly makes noise about how women should have fewer rights and maybe the 10 commandments belong in school… are not who you want in charge of science funding. Obviously.

Remember the sharpie path of the hurricane? No need for a supercomputer, we’ve got sharpie.

Team “windmills cause cancer” obviously isn’t better for science, get real.