One of the explicit goals of the NSF is to train the next generation of scientists. Part of that is making sure that you're creating a rich pipeline of people who are going to do innovative things. Broadening participation is much more about things like getting more (usually younger) people from all walks of life interested in joining your field. Which is basically an unmitigated good -- first, the obvious advantage that having more people who want to be in a field is good for it from the perspective of choosing the best folks. And second, the less obvious but perhaps more important thing that people with different perspectives often end up thinking about problems differently. It's not nearly as helpful to have 1000 people all focused on chasing the same problems with the same toolbox of solutions as it is to have 1000 people focused on different problems with different ideas of how to approach them.

I say this as a professor at a top computer science department. I have _never_ felt limited in my ability to collaborate with the best folks in my area. Ever. I do! And it's great! And I also believe strongly it's important to make sure we are growing those next generations of amazing people, because the thing that makes research awesome is working with them.

Ah, the ever present “nothing to see here” take. What this government is doing is worse than it’s ever been. At least before when you had your grant it wouldn’t be randomly cancelled at any time.

> "[broaden the] participation of underrepresented groups". [1] As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with... was somehow undesirable.

Are those mutually exclusive? I know that's a common argument, but it doesn't track to me. Finding the diamonds in the rough in underrepresented groups is part of finding the best of the best to collaborate with.

Government, and taxation/subsidies in general, have and always will be a tool to encourage one thing and discourage the other.

A lot of research won't be profitable for years to come or is even unlikely to be profitable at all, so you funding sources are limited. The government, having no profit motive, can encourage this kind of research by funding it. Typically the hope is that it'll lead to increased productivity or innovation down the line.

You don't have to be a statistician to see that not all groups of the populace are represented equally among scholars. If you want all viewpoints covered from you populace, wouldn't that mean you want to try and push for inclusion there? That doesn't mean everything has to be inclusive but you sure can incentivize it

> As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with, independent of their checkboxes, was somehow undesirable

The best of the best involves people from underrepresented groups. These policies exist to counteract the cronyism and “doesn’t look like me”-ism inherent to the way people make choices. We know people don’t hire and collaborate with the best of the best, because when looking for the best they see it easiest in people with similar backgrounds and perspectives as themselves.

It’s a shame the culture war cooked your brain on this one.

It’s much cleaner now. “How does your work financially benefit the principal or his cronies? Dude, are you buying a Dell?”

That’s not a test of whether the changes are bad; it’s a test of the Democrats’ character. We know the changes are bad. If subsequent administrations do nothing to reverse them, then they are bad too.

> If they don’t, you know that they also agreed with it - this handwringing now is just for show.

No, the left should use the things right broke to abuse the right—just like the right is breaking everything to abuse the left. Otherwise the right will never learn why breaking things is a bad idea, and they’ll just keep on breaking everything like they have been for my entire life and before.

You’re thinking tactically. I actually thing the democrats will try to put the Trumpist stuff back in the box. They may not be able to. The rule of law requires trust and that’s gone, and will only be rebuilt by time.

The reactionary Supreme Court has changed the character of the executive. That court will live for many years. The executive branch exists to represent the will of the chief executive. We’ve normalized criminal behavior with the abuse of pardons and crushed the institution of DOJ.

These guys opened a very stupid Pandora’s box. The long game is brutal. When we need to start dismantling the military, that’s going to impact some places pretty severely, for example. The science and tech edge will be gone in a decade.