by magicalist on 5/9/25, 12:13 PM with 767 comments
by zhivota on 5/9/25, 4:08 PM
The first one was on supercomputing, writing proof of concept code for a new supercomputing operating system (ZeptoOS). The second was on the automated stitching of imagery from UAVs for military applications (at a time when this was not commoditized at all, we were building UAVs in a garage and I was writing code derived from research papers).
Seeing all the programs that launched my career get dismantled like this is really saddening. There are/were thousands and thousands of college students getting exposed to cutting edge research via these humble programs, and I assume that is all now over. It didn't even cost much money. I got paid a pretty low stipend, which was nonetheless plenty to sustain my 20 year old self just fine. I think the whole program may have cost the government maybe $10k total.
$10k to build knowledge of cutting edge science that filters into industry. $10k to help give needed manpower to research projects that need it. $10k to give people who otherwise didn't have a road into science, exactly what they need to get their foot in the door.
I don't know how to describe what's happening here, but it's really, really stupid.
by ddahlen on 5/9/25, 1:58 PM
One of the interesting pieces of science that I think a lot of people don't think about is strategic investment. At one point I was paid from a government grant to do high power laser research. Of course there were goals for the grant, but the grant was specifically funded so that the US didn't lose the knowledge of HOW to build lasers. The optics field for example is small, and there are not that many professors. It is an old field, most of the real research is in the private industry. However what happens if a company goes out of business? If we don't have public institutions with the knowledge to train new generations then information can and will be lost.
by frob on 5/9/25, 1:45 PM
by chairhairair on 5/9/25, 2:00 PM
Why is this the focus of the admin? Science is one of the few things the US is doing well.
by insane_dreamer on 5/9/25, 3:00 PM
The damage for the next four years is done. The question is, even if there's a major shift back to sanity with the next prez elections, it'll take years to build up trust and the mechanisms, find and hire talented people willing to do the work, or even find enough talent because of all the grad students and post-docs that are _not_ employed by research labs in the next four years.
It'll take at least a decade to recover, and that may be optimistic. If others fill the gap (China will try but their credibility is low, which is the US's only saving grace), this could be a permanent degradation of the US's research capabilities.
Insane.
by hdivider on 5/9/25, 1:50 PM
I wonder if doge is using ML systems to do this kind of review in a far more centralized way across all of government. With the kind of data they have -- obtained by extra-legal means, a.k.a. theft -- they could exert a lot of control over crucial funding decisions.
The system is a Wild West almost by design. It evolved to prevent misuse. Not perfect, but hard to control quickly by a single authority. To me it seems doge is doing a centralization play so it can implement any directive from the great technoking.
by Fomite on 5/10/25, 1:26 AM
There's an incredible amount of cognitive burden just on doing science right now, and it's very difficult to feel like writing new proposals, working on long term projects, etc. is worthwhile.
by adamc on 5/9/25, 1:32 PM
by SubiculumCode on 5/9/25, 2:17 PM
by ourmandave on 5/9/25, 1:56 PM
In the new structure, even if a revised proposal gets the green light from a division director, a new body whose membership has not been determined will take a fresh look to ensure it conforms to the agency’s new standard for making awards.
So they're going to install gatekeepers to shoot down anything that even hints at DEI. I assume members will be hand picked by the Emperor from a Moms for Liberty short list.
by superkuh on 5/9/25, 1:44 PM
by aaroninsf on 5/9/25, 7:17 PM
It's not just the NSF, it's the entire functional federal government.
If you're wondering when it's time to literally shut down the country with a national strike? That time has already passed and that state persists until the children and put on time out.
by ImPostingOnHN on 5/9/25, 8:31 PM
It's sad to see this administration attacking startups and entrepreneurship in the US. Startup community volunteers will have to work that much harder at a time when traditional employment is less and less palatable.
by njarboe on 5/9/25, 3:42 PM
This statement is wrong. What a sad state of affairs Science Magazine has become. It should read, "The proposal is to cut the budget by 55% to $4 billion."
The 2024 budget was $9.06 billion and the 2025 request was $10.183 billion.[1]
by jimmar on 5/9/25, 2:12 PM
My PhD was largely funded through government grants, though not the NSF. To put it mildly, our government contacts were not the most competent people and were frequently roadblocks rather than enablers. There were many opportunities to streamline processes that would help researchers spend more time researching and less time on bureaucratic overhead.
[1] https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/04_fy2025.pdf?Versio...
by fabian2k on 5/9/25, 1:53 PM
The goal seems to be simply to destroy the current research system, and to have the bit that remains forced to adhere to an ideologically pure "anti-woke" course.
by freejazz on 5/9/25, 1:34 PM
by PeterStuer on 5/10/25, 7:50 AM
(I get some here are upset about the DEI stuff being weeded out, but that is not what my question is about)
by nickpsecurity on 5/9/25, 7:57 PM
That said, there is an ideological difference driving this on at least two points (if ignoring DEI etc).
One, taxes are taken from individuals to be spent on the government's priorities. Good, evil, or just wasteful... you have no say. If private donations, then you can fund the people and efforts you value most with your money. Conservatives say your money should be yours as much as possible which requires cutting NSF, etc.
Second, private individuals and businesses decide most of what happens in the markets. The problems in the markets are really their responsibility. If it needs NSF funding, the private parties are probably already failing to make that decision or see it as a bad one. Private, market theory says it's better to let markets run themselves with government interventions mostly blocking harmful behaviors. Ex: If nobody funds or buys secure systems, let them have the consequences of the insecure systems they want so much. Don't fund projects that nobody is buying or selling.
Those are two, large drivers in conservative policy that will exist regardless of other, political beliefs. Those arguing against it are saying the people running the government are more trustworthy with our money. Yet, they're crying out against what the current government is doing. Do they really trust them and want all those resources controlled by the latest administration? Or retain control of their own money to back, as liberals, what they belief in?
by UncleOxidant on 5/9/25, 3:24 PM
NSF is essentially investing in the future and $4B is already a very small amount compared to the whole federal budget. If anything NSF's budget should be increased. Why are they looking to save pocket change when the real money is in the DoD?
by gcanyon on 5/10/25, 4:19 AM
by WhitneyLand on 5/9/25, 4:15 PM
by thrance on 5/9/25, 11:58 PM
Academics appear to be biased to the left because the right explicitly hates science and rationality, not because of "wokeism" or "transgender ideology" or "cultural marxism" or whatever red herring fascists currently favor.
> There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
- Isaac Asimov, A cult of ignorance, 1980
This cult of ignorance is purely a right-wing one.
[1] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci...
by ndjeosibfb on 5/11/25, 1:15 AM
you can have a whole career based on getting funding for experiments that don’t actually work
by srikanth767 on 5/9/25, 1:59 PM
by imcritic on 5/10/25, 11:59 AM
www.science.org needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.
by catlikesshrimp on 5/9/25, 6:18 PM
This is equally worrying. Sounds like people living in a dictatorship reporting to a foreign news channel. Not quite there, yet.
by msie on 5/9/25, 10:33 PM
by sxcurry on 5/9/25, 9:35 PM
by mempko on 5/9/25, 3:59 PM
Looks like the Trump administration is trying to cripple US science and technology research and I don't understand why.
by gadders on 5/9/25, 5:53 PM
KAISER: Okay, so since you brought it up, kind of skipping around here, but so as you know, as you may not have seen the story. But we had heard it too, that there's going to be a policy canceling collaborations, foreign collaborations.
BHATTACHARYA: No, that's false.
KAISER: Is there going to be some sort of policy that...
BHATTACHARYA: There was a policy, there's going to be policy on tracking subawards.
KAISER: What does it mean?
BHATTACHARYA: I mean, if you're going to give a subaward, we should be able—the NIH and the government should be able see where the money's going.
by nvarsj on 5/10/25, 9:58 AM
US's global superiority has largely been driven by programs like the NSF, making the US the world leader for r&d and inventing completely new industries.
Why would you completely gut these programs with such amazing ROI?
Putting my conspiracist hat on, it seems like this only benefits countries like China/Russia that want to weaken the US.
by msie on 5/10/25, 12:18 AM
by ThinkBeat on 5/9/25, 2:05 PM
Or does this agency fall under the White House direct financing of some sort?
by EasyMark on 5/10/25, 12:52 AM
by msie on 5/9/25, 10:46 PM
by DoneWithAllThat on 5/9/25, 10:59 PM
by xhkkffbf on 5/9/25, 3:10 PM
The Science article suggests that there's danger of politicization, but that has been the case for many years.
by viburnum on 5/10/25, 4:24 AM
by jarjoura on 5/10/25, 10:21 AM
I assume this is just more of the same neo-liberalists’ Heritage Foundation at play here. No one is saying science shouldn’t science. Just that the government shouldn’t be in the business of funding it.
How else will Elon Musk make his next billion if he doesn’t get to invest in your research and sell it off after your 2 year time is up?
by ck2 on 5/9/25, 4:38 PM
this is tyranny
it might take longer to recover this loss than the lifetimes of anyone alive to witness it
by LightBug1 on 5/9/25, 1:39 PM
by zkmon on 5/9/25, 1:38 PM
by ThinkBeat on 5/9/25, 2:10 PM
"" The initial vetting is handled by hundreds of program officers, all experts in their field and some of whom are on temporary leave from academic positions. ""
by FraaJad on 5/9/25, 1:49 PM
Reducing bureaucracy is not the same as cutting science funding.
by Hilift on 5/9/25, 1:59 PM
Also, why is NSF fielding 40,000 proposals per year? That is 110 proposals per day. Is there really that much science to perform and not enough universities to host it? Not at all. It exists because every state and local government and educational institution is incentivized to solicit federal aid. Even if a school is located in Beverly Hills, federal aid will be solicited at all levels in K-12 and higher education. Republicans are saying they don't want anything to do with that level of centralized government.