Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:
“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines.
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
You should care at least as much as if someone pisses in the cup you're drinking from, because regardless of the merit of the 'science' being produced in certain fields, the findings of bad studies are nonetheless breathlessly reported as objectively true Science, becoming "facts" that influence who your fellow less-discerning citizens vote for and influence how those voted in approach policy decisions. The state of scientific research is bad enough, but it can become much worse when actively applied to propagandistic ends (moreso than it already is).
Scientists have been pissing in all our cups for longer than I've been alive. That you're arguing what concentration of urea is acceptable is part of the problem.
There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down.
"Burn it down" is not on the menu. Your options are "bad science, used to mildly propagandistic ends, mostly in the form of lobbying public policy via bought-and-paid-for studies" or "bad science, used to extremely propagandistic ends directly by the state". Even if the option you would prefer is "good science" or "no bad science", you live in the real world and are currently being presented with a society making the choice between the actual options on the table rather than fantasy options.
yes yes the solution to some debatably valid social science research is to burn the entire epistemological method and practice to the ground. We'll surely find something better to replace it in its absence.
The Party certainly isn't going to solve the replication crisis. It's just going to pressure researchers to publish a different set of unreplicable results.
Universities have produced medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough.
Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
How do you think medical treatments make it to the stage of doing clinical trials?
The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review.
You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.
TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government.
In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.
This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?
Aside from the couple of daft suggestions outlined in the article, this doesn't seem so bad. A mountain being made of a molehill, perhaps?
What about the automatic scanning for politically inconvenient keywords then? How do you figure that this isn't bad?
Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:
“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines.
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
It is a factual title. There are no emotive words in the title. If it evokes emotions, it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing.
Related:
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
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it."
It wasn't the party that made the replication crisis.
Right now universities have all the trappings of science with none of the substance.
Do I particularly care than they are going to be bent to the ends of those in power?
Kind of.
The same way I'm a bit upset if someone pisses in the holy water at a church.
It also wasnt The Party who identified the replication crisis, and started the work of fixing it.
Science is a self correcting mechanism, monarchism is not.
The crisis has been ongoing since the 80s and isn't slowing down.
If the cure for it is to wait till the researchers die so new better ones take their place you just reinvented feudalism with tenure.
Maybe because the crisis isn't a crisis. It's a 1) examining tough things with a lot of noise and low funding prevents adequate sampling
You should care at least as much as if someone pisses in the cup you're drinking from, because regardless of the merit of the 'science' being produced in certain fields, the findings of bad studies are nonetheless breathlessly reported as objectively true Science, becoming "facts" that influence who your fellow less-discerning citizens vote for and influence how those voted in approach policy decisions. The state of scientific research is bad enough, but it can become much worse when actively applied to propagandistic ends (moreso than it already is).
Scientists have been pissing in all our cups for longer than I've been alive. That you're arguing what concentration of urea is acceptable is part of the problem.
There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down.
Universities are far past that point.
"Burn it down" is not on the menu. Your options are "bad science, used to mildly propagandistic ends, mostly in the form of lobbying public policy via bought-and-paid-for studies" or "bad science, used to extremely propagandistic ends directly by the state". Even if the option you would prefer is "good science" or "no bad science", you live in the real world and are currently being presented with a society making the choice between the actual options on the table rather than fantasy options.
yes yes the solution to some debatably valid social science research is to burn the entire epistemological method and practice to the ground. We'll surely find something better to replace it in its absence.
The Party certainly isn't going to solve the replication crisis. It's just going to pressure researchers to publish a different set of unreplicable results.
Universities have produced medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough.
Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
Clinical trails have produced medical breakthroughs, peer review gave us leeches.
False dichotomy
How do you think medical treatments make it to the stage of doing clinical trials?
The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review.
You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.
Clinical trials don’t happen until there’s a treatment to try.
Like leeches.
[dead]
TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government. In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.
This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?
Fraud Guarantee