You're right -- the whole incentive structure of academia invites and rewards conformism, and left wing views are the ones that have captured that conformism. It doesn't have to be like that though. Yes there are a lot of left wing academic scientists, and that's who we hear from, but then there are a lot of libertarian/centrist/right wing academic scientists who just want to lay low and focus on their science. I think it's incumbent on the latter to have the courage to be disliked and to offer diverse viewpoints in constructive ways. One of the reasons I started my Substack was to help to fill the void of non-Leftist academic scientists online.
It's interesting to me that schools like Harvard would rather lose significant research funding for science and medicine rather than capitulate on issues that don't involve that same research. In other words, the political monoculture of these institutions is so strong that some (scientists who just want to do research) are expected to take one for the team. Making concessions is simply not an option.
Yup I agree. I was encouraged at Columbia’s apparent moves to compromise. Harvard seem to be viewing this very tribally and see stubbornness as a virtue, while their own scientists suffer for it.
Tribal is the keyword. For many in academia, this is part of an existential struggle...a fight between good and evil where they are some kind of hero. The reality is that a significant number of people consider academics to be just political actors now, and they are merely being treated that way.
This is quite laughable. It would take some severe partisan brainrot to believe that the persistent attacks from the administration on universities is not going to have a negative effect on research. To date, there has been $3 billion cut from NSF and NIH funding alone with universities having to bend the knee in order for funding to be restored. A drop in the water perhaps, but I imagine this will be a mere drop in the water of the total damage the administration intends on wreaking on research funding.
Also, if you're so hard-working yourself, which you endlessly allude to, you'd think you would have a better publication record to show for it, no?
If you believe that the universities are being run in a way that doesn't optimise for scientific research (which there is much evidence for), then attacking these institutions could create short-term pain but long-term gain for US science.
Where are you getting the $3 billion number from? Money is being moved around or put on hold, but the total amount appropriated by congress for research has not been severely impacted. Congressional resistance, including bipartisan support in the Senate Appropriations Committee, preserved NIH and NSF funding close to FY 2024 levels. For example, the Senate proposed only a $16 million cut to NSF’s budget, rejecting the administration’s $5 billion reduction. US democracy is strong, despite a frantic media ecosystem, and support for science is bipartisan. Threats of cuts are not the same thing as cuts. Such threats are one of the only levers the WH can pull to encourage the universities to uphold the law regarding things like racial discrimination in hiring and admissions (yes--they still directly ignore a SCOTUS ruling).
Not sure if I "endlessly allude to" being hardworking. But I'll take the criticism as fair. I'll work harder!
Unsure what you're referencing when you say universities are being run in a way that does not optimise scientific research. Anyway, I don't think that advancing scientific research is the sole function of a university—although it is one of its primary functions—so I'll let that through to the keeper. However, if you think that bullying universities by either totally cancelling their research funding (or threatening to) is 'short term pain' then I am not sure what common ground we have. Hundreds of researchers at Harvard and Columbia alone lost their jobs via the ongoing shitshow conducted under the veil of protecting minorities. In addition, it's also much harder for internationals (such as yourself) to maintain their positions in the US thanks to haphazard border policies.
The $3 billion is a rough estimate of the funding paused/stopped after Trump's 'crackdown' on a number of universities. I don't really see much point in referencing the senate either because it's quite clear that the country is, for the meantime, run by the executive and his whims.
It's good news the full $5 billion in cuts was not passed, but it is a stretch to say that support for science funding is bipartisan. On that note, perhaps you've seen the new 'gold standard' the WH wants to adopt in assessing grants? It's blatantly obvious they want to nix grants that they believe to be rubbish irrespective of what people in the field think. Do you think one of these non-individual experts would grant funding to your research, which as far as I can tell is 'basic research'? No, they're interested in research with clear practical applications (read: financial implications). This research is important too, but I worry for the people studying things I haven't the slightest idea or interest in which might one day lead to a significant breakthrough (GLP-1 agonists for example).
You strike me as someone who is otherwise reasonable, but via some strange reaction to peak woke in the late 10's and the media's coverage of Trump between '16 and 20' decided that all criticism of Trump and rightwing governments was illogical whining from 'leftists'. I dislike the histrionics of the eternally online too, but defending a whitehouse and administration that is outright hostile to universities is somewhere I could never see myself unless I too had become captured by some ideology. Being a contrarian is great until you start tying yourself in knots to make an argument that, deep down, you know is bullshit.
I agree with you that it's a bit of a shitshow. I think the chaos is probably the greatest downside for scientists. But who creates chaos? The media ecosystem has certainly done its best to amplify it. If I didn't read the news, the impact of the WH on science at my institute would be completely imperceptible. Literally nothing has happened and nobody has lost their job or grants here.
I'm also not really defending the means of this administration, but I do agree with their ends (as do most Americans)--which is to remove illegal admissions practices and reduce funding completely garbage projects which were previously only funded for political reasons.
Perhaps "short term pain" is too much of a euphemism, but I think the long term benefits are already visible. Look at Columbia: completely restructuring their swollen administration, creating stable internal funding from their endowment, and increasing the efficiency of their bureaucracy. That's good, right?!
My research is basic, but every single grant/fellowship proposal I write justifies it with pretty direct future applications. It's funny how you've done this here with GLP-1 agonists. People cannot justify basic research other than by showing how it actually creates applied research in the long term.
There is perhaps some truth in your aetiology for my frustration here. On this particular issue, I was just mind-boggled by the disconnect between my experience of moving to the US and beginning a project with way more funding than I've ever had access to, versus the absolutely constant doomerism from the media, including from the news sections of academic journals. I hate being manipulated, and this whole "death of US science" thing feels incredibly manipulative. Alarmism sells I guess.
Mr cremieux there, well known eugenicist and someone who spreads 30’s era nazi germany level race science. I’m sure you know that which is why you follow them though.
America’s scientists are awfully political. Nobody made them become so. Did they think they could afford luxury beliefs?
You're right -- the whole incentive structure of academia invites and rewards conformism, and left wing views are the ones that have captured that conformism. It doesn't have to be like that though. Yes there are a lot of left wing academic scientists, and that's who we hear from, but then there are a lot of libertarian/centrist/right wing academic scientists who just want to lay low and focus on their science. I think it's incumbent on the latter to have the courage to be disliked and to offer diverse viewpoints in constructive ways. One of the reasons I started my Substack was to help to fill the void of non-Leftist academic scientists online.
It's interesting to me that schools like Harvard would rather lose significant research funding for science and medicine rather than capitulate on issues that don't involve that same research. In other words, the political monoculture of these institutions is so strong that some (scientists who just want to do research) are expected to take one for the team. Making concessions is simply not an option.
Yup I agree. I was encouraged at Columbia’s apparent moves to compromise. Harvard seem to be viewing this very tribally and see stubbornness as a virtue, while their own scientists suffer for it.
Tribal is the keyword. For many in academia, this is part of an existential struggle...a fight between good and evil where they are some kind of hero. The reality is that a significant number of people consider academics to be just political actors now, and they are merely being treated that way.
Good luck with that.
This is quite laughable. It would take some severe partisan brainrot to believe that the persistent attacks from the administration on universities is not going to have a negative effect on research. To date, there has been $3 billion cut from NSF and NIH funding alone with universities having to bend the knee in order for funding to be restored. A drop in the water perhaps, but I imagine this will be a mere drop in the water of the total damage the administration intends on wreaking on research funding.
Also, if you're so hard-working yourself, which you endlessly allude to, you'd think you would have a better publication record to show for it, no?
If you believe that the universities are being run in a way that doesn't optimise for scientific research (which there is much evidence for), then attacking these institutions could create short-term pain but long-term gain for US science.
Where are you getting the $3 billion number from? Money is being moved around or put on hold, but the total amount appropriated by congress for research has not been severely impacted. Congressional resistance, including bipartisan support in the Senate Appropriations Committee, preserved NIH and NSF funding close to FY 2024 levels. For example, the Senate proposed only a $16 million cut to NSF’s budget, rejecting the administration’s $5 billion reduction. US democracy is strong, despite a frantic media ecosystem, and support for science is bipartisan. Threats of cuts are not the same thing as cuts. Such threats are one of the only levers the WH can pull to encourage the universities to uphold the law regarding things like racial discrimination in hiring and admissions (yes--they still directly ignore a SCOTUS ruling).
Not sure if I "endlessly allude to" being hardworking. But I'll take the criticism as fair. I'll work harder!
Unsure what you're referencing when you say universities are being run in a way that does not optimise scientific research. Anyway, I don't think that advancing scientific research is the sole function of a university—although it is one of its primary functions—so I'll let that through to the keeper. However, if you think that bullying universities by either totally cancelling their research funding (or threatening to) is 'short term pain' then I am not sure what common ground we have. Hundreds of researchers at Harvard and Columbia alone lost their jobs via the ongoing shitshow conducted under the veil of protecting minorities. In addition, it's also much harder for internationals (such as yourself) to maintain their positions in the US thanks to haphazard border policies.
The $3 billion is a rough estimate of the funding paused/stopped after Trump's 'crackdown' on a number of universities. I don't really see much point in referencing the senate either because it's quite clear that the country is, for the meantime, run by the executive and his whims.
It's good news the full $5 billion in cuts was not passed, but it is a stretch to say that support for science funding is bipartisan. On that note, perhaps you've seen the new 'gold standard' the WH wants to adopt in assessing grants? It's blatantly obvious they want to nix grants that they believe to be rubbish irrespective of what people in the field think. Do you think one of these non-individual experts would grant funding to your research, which as far as I can tell is 'basic research'? No, they're interested in research with clear practical applications (read: financial implications). This research is important too, but I worry for the people studying things I haven't the slightest idea or interest in which might one day lead to a significant breakthrough (GLP-1 agonists for example).
You strike me as someone who is otherwise reasonable, but via some strange reaction to peak woke in the late 10's and the media's coverage of Trump between '16 and 20' decided that all criticism of Trump and rightwing governments was illogical whining from 'leftists'. I dislike the histrionics of the eternally online too, but defending a whitehouse and administration that is outright hostile to universities is somewhere I could never see myself unless I too had become captured by some ideology. Being a contrarian is great until you start tying yourself in knots to make an argument that, deep down, you know is bullshit.
I agree with you that it's a bit of a shitshow. I think the chaos is probably the greatest downside for scientists. But who creates chaos? The media ecosystem has certainly done its best to amplify it. If I didn't read the news, the impact of the WH on science at my institute would be completely imperceptible. Literally nothing has happened and nobody has lost their job or grants here.
I'm also not really defending the means of this administration, but I do agree with their ends (as do most Americans)--which is to remove illegal admissions practices and reduce funding completely garbage projects which were previously only funded for political reasons.
Perhaps "short term pain" is too much of a euphemism, but I think the long term benefits are already visible. Look at Columbia: completely restructuring their swollen administration, creating stable internal funding from their endowment, and increasing the efficiency of their bureaucracy. That's good, right?!
My research is basic, but every single grant/fellowship proposal I write justifies it with pretty direct future applications. It's funny how you've done this here with GLP-1 agonists. People cannot justify basic research other than by showing how it actually creates applied research in the long term.
There is perhaps some truth in your aetiology for my frustration here. On this particular issue, I was just mind-boggled by the disconnect between my experience of moving to the US and beginning a project with way more funding than I've ever had access to, versus the absolutely constant doomerism from the media, including from the news sections of academic journals. I hate being manipulated, and this whole "death of US science" thing feels incredibly manipulative. Alarmism sells I guess.
Shout out to you for following white supremacists on sub stack
To whom are you referring?
Mr cremieux there, well known eugenicist and someone who spreads 30’s era nazi germany level race science. I’m sure you know that which is why you follow them though.