> These appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations.

In what world did someone think that's a good idea? Don't these rule changes need to be approved before enacted?

A lot of focus has been put on the freedom of speech aspects of this — and rightly so — but my concern is that this is a much broader attempt to simply put control of research monies in the hands of the Trump administration for whatever purposes it serves those individuals.

It's essentially an assertion that they can do whatever they like with funds allocated for research, giving it to whoever they like, under whatever conditions they like, whenever they want.

Related discussion at the time last month:

WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511

What's Happening to Science in America

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687

Canada and Europe welcomes all scientists. Many of our workplaces are 100% English-speaking, and you don’t have to pay out the nose for healthcare - you pay less for it on your taxes here than you do in America, and there are zero additional costs on top; no co-pays, no deductibles, no medical insurance needed.

[dead]

[flagged]

“advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government” that alone bans islamisys from all campuses.