Remix.run Logo
dnautics a day ago

since when does freedom of speech cover "getting money from the government". there is broad latitude for to government to restrict the speech of employees in general (if you are a nonappointed employee of the executive branch you cannot lobby the legislature as a matter of separation of powers, if youre in the military or privy to top secret materials, theres a ton of things you can't say).

xenadu02 a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think your argument is a genuine one in this case.

The government is and always has been the primary driver of science research funding. There simply isn't enough of a known payoff for private investors to bother and private philanthropists have never come close to making up the shortfall. Or perhaps more accurately the government stepped in because private individuals would not and the risk was falling dramatically behind the world in research.

Now new administrations have always been able to influence grant awards. But rarely have they been so ... bad at their jobs? Who really thinks a keyword list is the right way to filter grant applications?

People have always been driven by ideology but the current US admin is just so stupid. Shockingly incompetently stupid. Even if you agree with their ideology do you really want this clown show being the ones implementing it in such a ham-fisted idiotic way?

ZeroGravitas a day ago | parent | next [-]

> But rarely have they been so ... bad at their jobs? Who really thinks a keyword list is the right way to filter grant applications?

Depends what you (and they) think their job is.

RAGE was one acronymn thrown about and name-checked by the vice-president "Retire all Government Employees".

Russel Vaught said:

> We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down... We want to put them in trauma."

dnautics a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> There simply isn't enough of a known payoff for private investors to bother and private philanthropists have never come close to making up the shortfall.

not true. in the us, the government funds only about half of all research and development expenditures.

> private philanthropists have never come close to making up the shortfall.

you are certainly not thinking about university endowments. Numerically most university professors are operaring from a startup budget given by the university, not a grant. even in an r1, most professors do not come in with external money.

> bad at their jobs? Who really thinks a keyword list is the right way to filter grant applications?

i mean. i dont know which is dumber. thinking a keyword list is a good idea for cancelling grants or thinking that a grant application is the right way to filter for good science in the first place?

qsera a day ago | parent | prev [-]

>Even if you agree with their ideology do you really want this clown show being the ones implementing it in such a ham-fisted idiotic way?

Well, the alternative is to have a competent (debatable..) execution of a rotten ideology...

hallgrim a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, the government funds science projects in general, and now they are limiting it based on a very loose list of terms related to ideas counter to their own ideology.

The idea of freedom of speech is to not limit expression of ideas counter to any one ideology.

Also, if corporations donating to political campaigns is speech, so should science funding be - which is now being restricted.

Their usual retort is: “we need more speech in the market place of ideas, not censorship”.

So why don’t they just fund right-wing-aligned projects instead?

Hypocrisy all around.

dnautics a day ago | parent [-]

if those scientists were to raise money from private donors would they find themselves in jail, or their property confiscated to where they couldnt continue research? that is the definition of "freedom of speech".

if you accept money from the government, you must also accept the fact that that money is political. complaining that losing a barely earned privilege is a loss of freedom of speech is a fucking slap in the face of people who have actually fought hard for freedom of speech.

hallgrim a day ago | parent | next [-]

Government funding didn’t use to be political. Humanities existed and got funding even during republican presidents.

It has been made political relatively recently. That’s one of my issues.

dnautics 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Government funding is political full stop. it might be bipartisan but it's still political, by definition. if you cannot accept this your policy opinions will always be hopelessly distorted.

wtfwhateven 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, that is not the definition of "freedom of speech".

Please also read the first amendment.

hallgrim a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also, I know this isn’t the definition of free speech per se. Hence the nod at citizens united which made a farce of the whole concept.

dnautics a day ago | parent | prev [-]

btw i have a phd in the hard sciences so i know what im talking about when i say grants are "barely earned privileges". they do not, in general, go to the most qualified or talented scientists, hence the word "grantsmanship" to refer to the skills required to obtain a grant that are not the pure scientific skill