1. Trump has been trying to cut Science budgers by larger percentages for a while now. Congress has not let them.

2. NIH funding notice of awards has slowed to a crawl since Trump did not get his wish to cut Science funding.

3. Putting scientific funding under political control, instructing them to ignore the reviews conducted by peer scientists.

4. Have practically made international collaborations on grants impossible. An expert in Canada or Europe that would be great? Pretty much, too bad.

5. Pushing policies that make grants cancelable at any moment without need to have a justified reason, including potentially for exercising free speech, disagreeing with Administration doctrine, etc, or because you're ugly. This and the funding uncertainty makes planning difficult...just like business, stability/predictability matters.

6. Pushing policies that prevent funds to help cover costs of dissemination, including conference costs.

▲

Vaslo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice. Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts.

	▲	nickgros 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts I doubt "10s of millions of Americans" can describe the core functions of the NIH > when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice. How do you think new appointees and hires in the NIH/HHS are selected? Political loyalty seems to be a better predictor than scientific impact or output. > Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts. The cuts and changes are dramatically impacting research support. Grant money is not being disbursed at the same rate since the new review changes began. You can more plainly characterize the changes as harmful to research in general than focused on removing whatever specific things you don't like.
	▲	zzleeper an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm pretty sure only a small fraction of grants gave this issue, and the cuts have meanwhile being very wide, without any sort of intelligent approach (I know ppl doing stuff like material science at nasa that now have nothing to do because they cut costs of various inputs, while the very expensive lab equipment is sitting there now unused)
	▲	meebee an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Can you cite any stats or studies that show that this is happening in any substantial amounts? This seems to be one of those "it just makes common sense" when the underlying data is ignored or assumed.
	▲	thinkingtoilet 44 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice. Prove it. Prove this happens at a large scale. This is just nonsense talking points.