Jesweez
9d ago
You have me mixed up with someone.
I’m a very infrequent commenter and I’m from the US.
I actually think that’s sort of legit.
My colleague is Peruvian. He founded a whole system of training botanists in Peru to fill large gaps in Amazon forest research.
(In Peru, with Peruvian money, before you get mad at me. But initially because he was funded from Oxford and he does still compete for international grants).
A lot of countries around the world have very little support for science. People who want to do it, well, you go to the US or the UK for that kind of thing.
But scientific infrastructure which gets planted in these places can help train up local talent.
I’ve seen it in many countries. Panama has the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute which trained a lot of very skilled Panamanian and other latin country researchers, as well as those who do stuff like maintain museums and collections and so on.
You ever want to see someone profoundly skilled at what they do, go for a trek with a 60 year old botanist who works and lives around tropical forests and can identify thousands of trees from minute differences. Skill level is off the chart for that discipline.
And well, I’m biased, but I have the wishy washy belief that spreading the art and practice of scientific research around the world is a very legitimate benefit for humanity.
Maybe if there’s a nuclear holocaust some Chileans will keep the scientific flame alive, who knows.
Jesweez
9d ago
A working class revolt against the educated class, yes
I can see why maybe you felt that previous years were like the cultural revolution, you probably felt censored and I can get that.
I never really had opinions I felt I had to censor that much under wokeness, but I am fresh off of scrubbing all mentions of “climate” from my research proposal and changing every instance of “diversity”, even though I was talking about the diversity of water availability among forests
Jesweez
9d ago
I’ve come to realize this about this movement, yes.
Essentially, the US can’t be my home anymore if things go on like this for much longer.
The attitude that causes someone to shout at Zelenskyy, “why don’t you wear a suit? Do you even own a suit?”.. that’s what’s in charge and their ire extends to me.
The best historical analogy I know of is the cultural revolution in China where the intellectual class was persecuted.
They’re not that violent, of course, but I also don’t want to give them the chance to be.
Jesweez
9d ago
That is one theory of what they’re doing.
But man, idk. I think seeing the research experiences for undergraduates (REU) being shelved across so much of the country is what got to me here, in addition to watching my own students have to deal with shelving their year long products (on the same day).
If we’re choosing not to support and train kids who are into science and trying to learn, we’re really losing out.
If that is their strategy, I hope that information can flow to them somehow and the things which train up the scientific workforce get repaired sooner rather than later.
Jesweez
9d ago
I mean, it’s the truth. Basic science is a fundamental engine of progress. Just look at the past century of innovation.
Funding basic science is not something companies typically do. It’s too indirect. They’re not going to foot the bill to study what chemicals are in a desert dwelling lizard’s mouth.
I’d argue the same whether I was a scientist or not.
Jesweez
9d ago
To be honest I’ve never seen examples of unprofessionalism or activism in any of my sojourns in the academic world, particularly not among STEM.
I’m sure you can find examples of scientists behaving badly, and maybe a bad apple does spoil the lot, but I’ve truly only ever seen cases where instances of fudging data gets you excommunicated from your career, and several examples of wishy washy politicized (or just romanticized) science leading to pushback and loss of reputation.
It could be that I’m blind to it. But that’s my experience.
There’s several things going on here IMO. One, it’s hard to see all of an institution when you’re inside it, you only interact with and see your local closest nodes.
But also, it’s really hard for people outside to have an accurate grasp of it as well. A lot of the information that flows to the public sphere itself flows through biased mediums. You could easily paint a whole system as Chinese robbers based on an example or two.
So, I acknowledge there could be a lot of highly politicized scientists in some epidemic of science that I’m not really perceiving. But I’m also suspicious of these takes that STEM science is so deeply political at present.
There’s a big mismatch between my experience and what you’re implying, there’s probably a reality inbetween our two positions but I’m almost certain that the extreme view that many here take towards science is not it.
Jesweez
9d ago
Certainly the country is welcome to decide the amount of funding that should go toward science.
I do believe that the uncertainty and removal of opportunities will potentially have generational effects on the ability of the US to do science, which I think is a shame.
We’re currently a scientific powerhouse of a nation. I do see these moves as deciding to cede that status.
I obviously disagree with the sentiment being shared in this thread as I believe that scientific powerhouses are rare in history would prefer not to see this one undone or ceded.
Jesweez
9d ago
Sometimes my prefrontal cortex doesn’t make the best decisions, but that doesn’t mean that I’m going to sabotage it out of revenge.
Essentially you’re arguing that this is for revenge and implicitly acknowledging that it will be bad for the United States even so.
Jesweez
9d ago
I’ve semi doxxed myself on this platform by saying what I work on before, so I don’t really mind doing it again.
I work on developing models that estimate the water content of vegetation from satellite imagery. This has direct relevance for fire risk forecasting, and I use it to study where droughts affect forests most.
You can judge for yourself the usefulness of this, but also, I think the thinking generally reflects a wrong perspective about where benefit in science comes from.
Some systems are weak link chains, and others are strong link chains. The quality of a weak link system depends on the strength of the weakest link, and the strongest is somewhat irrelevant. An example of this is food safety inspection. One key mistake and the mission is a failure.
However, science is more of a strong link system. There can be a lot of low quality papers, sure. But really the benefit we gain from science arises from top quality research that gets done. You can have 100 people doing low impact research, but if you get out of that investment even one big breakthrough, it can be very worth it.
The problem here is that science is sort of a blind search as well, we don’t know where big breakthroughs might exist. Who would have been crazy enough to say that studying Gila monster venom would lead to one of the most important drug class discoveries in the 21st century. You might say, ah ozempic type drugs, who cares, I’m not fat. But maybe the next unexpected discovery reverses Alzheimer’s, who knows. Maybe you are destined to get Alzheimer’s, at that point, would have been nice to have some strange new drug class that combats it.
Saying, “hey, random PhD student, I don’t think your work is that important in the end and thus I’m fine with weakening science in the United States across the board”.. it’s certainly a position one may take, but I’d say it is not at all a smart one regarding human or national advancement.
A quick report from the world of science and academia.
Strange times indeed. Grant proposals my lab has been working on for months have disappeared. I’m seeing and hearing of several nodes in my network which are in federal positions just disappearing.
I also advise students who are building software products for clients, and of both clients that are government agencies, NASA and US Forest Service, today I have learned that one has essentially cancelled the project at its end stages and the other has been MIA for weeks (Ironically, the cancelled product was a system that would significantly improve the efficiency of a key NASA analysis workflow).
Today I see news that the NSF research experiences for undergraduates, which trains undergraduates to conduct real research and which I personally credit with making me into a scientist, is being shuttered across much of the country.
The grant I’m relying on to complete my PhD is on shaky ground according to people close to the problem, and I fear that funding cuts could affect the only backup plan I have, which is continuing working as a teaching assistant. (A luxurious $15k per year + tuition remission). The key expert on my committee in the tech I’m using is at NASA and I fear for the longevity of his position.
Feels like the government is just dismantling the world I’ve spent my life working to become a part of, and I can’t say that I quite understand why.
I’m in a hard science field with direct applications to societal benefits. I believe that what I’m working on is something many would recognize as important. And I also think there’s a pretty clear link between training people who do this sort of thing (STEM generally) and national wellbeing and competitiveness.
I could understand this all better if it was just Trump doing it alone. Sort of a lower class rebellion against the educated class. But what really has me confused is the fact that it’s being spearheaded by Musk and “tech” people.
When DOGE was first announced I thought, great! I deeply dislike Trump but maybe this will make it actually be quite worth it in the end if we can fix the behemoth of government and make it more efficient. Maybe the country will be able to start to build things again, like the tech guys say, it’s time to build! But what we got was quite different from that hopeful version of me had in mind. SV types spearheading the dismantling of the US institution of science. That was not on my bingo card! Why was this the first move of DOGE? Noah Smith argues that it’s an ideological purge rather than an attempt at efficiency, and I guess that makes sense. Ultimately science funding is quite small potatoes in the federal budget. So why is it among the first major target of the administration and DOGE?
I don’t want to catastrophize here. Science in the US is being weakened and downsized, and somewhat purged for touchy topics, but it’s not being destroyed. I’ll probably be able to pull through and finish my program, at least that’s my current hope.
Yet it seems quite obvious to me that these moves are going to significantly weaken the US against competitors such as China. Science has its flaws, but it’s still the secret sauce of western societies’ success and a key part of the economic engine. I’ve always thought of Elon Musk as a big picture, long term thinker who understands the role of science and technology in human advancement. So I’m at a loss for why he would direct focus onto weakening science in the US as among his first moves if his interest really is with the medium to long term success of the US.
Jesweez
11d ago
Large portions of Trump votes are likely based on illegal immigration or concerns about inflation, his election isn’t itself evidence that any majority of the US is deeply against having an Indian doctor move here.
Jesweez
11d ago
The United States pretty much has three main qualities that redeem it in my eyes.
\1) It’s a global powerhouse of scientific research, 2) it has vast tracts of public lands, and 3) people tend to earn more here than in other places.
Current stances toward subtracting 2/3 of those might be enough to make me forgo the third in search of greener pastures.
Jesweez
11d ago
“The number of centi-millionaires ($100 million net worth) in the world has more than doubled in the last 20 years and now stands at 28,420”
Jesweez
20d ago
Sounds awesome, now you just have to claim that protestors have some foreign funding and it’s open season on your citizens
Jesweez
21d ago
While the major names around him keep talking about their idea that judges should not be able to impose limits on the executive
Jesweez
21d ago
And praised China's "strength" for Tiananmen square, while lamenting that we're not strong like that and that we should be stronger
Jesweez
27d ago
I just didn't really see what's worth engaging with in your comment, I read it at the time as a lazy equivocation of latinos with gang members.
Putting in a tad more effort: So, some gang members protected their neighborhood from looters, that's fine. But I'm not sure why it suggests that latinos as a demographic would be any more willing to live under an islamic theocracy than anyone else. If anything the example shows the opposite, they stood up for themselves and their neighborhood.
Jesweez
27d ago
Well, different people disagree on what is justice and what isn't.
Another example is "mob justice", or any form of "cruel and unusual" punishment.
It's something that humans often do, that's all I wanted to say.
Jesweez
27d ago
I was matching the energy for what I saw as a pretty low effort response to me, but agreed I wont do that anymore
Jesweez
27d ago
I feel like their kids will be just as American as for example 20th century Chinese immigrants offspring became.
I used to have 2 Nepali roommates and they loved getting out and enjoying American culture, watching football, celebrating thanksgiving, etc. First gen immigrants there, grew up in Nepal but honestly pretty indistinguishable from an American to me just after a few years other than the fact that they cook (damn spicy) Nepali food.
I got to know a lot of south asians from their friend group. I think they do often stick together when they're first generation but its really only being somewhat hesitant and nervous in a new place IMO. I never noticed any extreme loyalty to their own traditions and norms that would make me think these things wont just easily slip away like they did for all the previous immigrant groups.
For the most part they seemed to just enjoy the US and even before coming here I think have already been pretty Americanized in ways that surprise me, like knowing more pop cultural American stuff than even I do at times.
NSF, NIH, etc. are a tiny fraction of the federal budget. The gains you’d get here are minuscule.
And to be doing it while proposing legislature that continues to skyrocket the debt.
It does not seem to be about cost cutting.
More options
Context Copy link