Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chris J. Karr's avatar

Congress has the power of the purse, and isn't zealously protecting it as it should.

What happens if there's a federal tax protest among citizens of the Blue States and the purse shrinks? This country was founded on the principle of "no taxation without representation", and as the Executive branch ignores the laws duly passed by our representatives, we're back to the Boston Harbor once more.

I will also say that you're doing Eisenhower a GREAT disservice by suggesting that he'd approve of or have any part in Trump's wanton destruction of the foundations of American scientific research. The National Institute of Health predates Ike's presidency by about 80 years, the National Science Foundation was established during the Truman administration and was awarding grants during Ike's tenure, and (D)ARPA was established during his presidency.

And to defend the DEI*A* initiatives - at least in the healthcare space - a good part of those resources were dedicated to recruiting, training, and supporting researchers from a variety of DIVERSE backgrounds, because the status quo simply wasn't cutting it. We NEED researchers from diverse backgrounds, because they have connections to and credibility with communities that are under-represented in scientific and medical study participant pools, especially when those communities don't have a lot of incentive to participate in studies, given the shameful treatment those communities have endured in the past, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study[1], which wasn't terminated until 1972.

A large part of the work I do as part of my day job[2] is working with researchers to find ways to reach those often ignored and under-served communities using technologies like apps, WhatsApp, and SMS to try and help folks that were ignored or overlooked prior to attempting to build a scientific corps that is representative of our nation at large. I'm not going to argue that some institutions didn't go overboard with it (I never included pronouns in my e-mails), but the sheer ignorance of your golem is going to burn the folks cheering it on far more than pronouns or Robin diAngelo seminars ever did.[3]

There's a GOOD argument for a overhauled system of compensating research institutions (my clients) indirect rates - some more transparency would always be better - but this is Congress's job to do - not Elon Musk's and his crew of Skibidi Boyz. It's also worth noting that those institutions don't dictate their indirect rates, but those are negotiated regularly with the federal gov't in the interest of making sure those funds are being appropriately spent[4]. If the current regime wants to axe DEI, you do that by making DEI-related expenditures exempt from the institution's negotiated indirect rate (and axe any DEI-requirements, such as diversity statements to accompany grant proposals). You don't stop paying people while you send your Dunning-Kruger crew in to figure things out AFTER you've interrupted valuable, but expensive studies.

As far as there being "nothing we can do", we can not pay our federal taxes until the laws are being enforced and implemented as written. As a Blue Stater myself, I'm looking forward to a consortium of like-minded polities banding together to prevent a brain drain elsewhere, and funding research among themselves. Katie Britt and Alabama can reap what they've sown for all I care. The 22 states suing the Trump administration might be a good place to start building that research coalition[5].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

[2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4YIBh8YAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

[3] https://aldailynews.com/nih-funding-cuts-could-jeopardize-life-saving-research-in-alabama/

[4] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/appendix-Appendix%20IV%20to%20Part%20200

[5] https://wapo.st/42MffUp

Expand full comment
Steve Berman's avatar

I’ll chime in here. I believe the main issue is how much should the federal government fund in research done by NGOs. I don’t have the answers. But I think there is a perception that many times the cart is driving the horse. And that’s out of balance. If there is an entire organization and infrastructure to receive, read, weigh, and decide on grant applications dealing with thousands of subjects, is that really what our nation needs? Is it the most efficient way of distributing capital and priority to do basic research? Or, as many things that are government do, are they ossified monoliths devoted to their own continued existence? I think there’s a perception of the latter, especially dealing with DEI related topics invading hard science research.

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts