Deep expertise is not a blank check for funding. There is only so much money to go around and at some point you have to articulate your value to those paying for it (in this case, the tax payers and their representatives).

Yes, this means a high level summary generally focused on ends rather than the gory details of the means.

An expert acting in good faith should be able to provide this or, in the spirit of the Feynman technique, I would argue they aren't much of an expert at all.

▲

ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Deep expertise is not a blank check for funding.

Sure. But the people vetting your proposals should have useful expertise in assessing it. Individual grant proposals for scientific research should essentially never be something a congressional rep is deciding on.

Someone needs to assess, say, the B-21's radar absorbent coating project, but it'd be a mistake to think some random pediatrician is the right one to do it.

▲

mmcdermott 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> something a congressional rep is deciding on.

Congress does not, by and large, get down to that level. They are typically approving a line time that encompasses a form of lump sum (i.e. "$100 million to NSF across these categories").

You can see the budget request here: https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2026

Defense spending would typically be a gruesome bidding process.

But either way, your proposal must at some point speak to something a generalist would understand. And that is how it should be - anything else is taxation without representation.

▲

ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Congress does not, by and large, get down to that level.

Oh, they love to do precisely that.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/reps/dr-paul-delivers-ope...

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/senator-misleads-absurd-sc...

> But either way, your proposal must at some point speak to something a generalist would understand.

A competent generalist, sure. But we've gone and given significant veto power to random Twitter influencers like @libsoftiktok.

	▲	mmcdermott 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Oh, they love to do precisely that. I think it's been pretty well established that most legislators do not take the time to understand the details of bills prior to voting. Moreover, these articles refer to an attempt to question how grant money already given (and presumably spent) was used. Scrutiny is an inherent part of the powers of the purse. I.e. "we gave you $100 million to provide disaster relief, economic development in our sphere of influence, etc - what did you do with it?" It's fair to want to retain the spending being questioned, but Congress is explicitly responsible for this function.