New executive order puts all grants under political control
54 comments
·August 8, 2025ocschwar
russellbeattie
[delayed]
0xy
[flagged]
birn559
Not sure how to read it. Do you believe covid-19 virus came from an US (funded) lab? I have never heard of that theory.
SubiculumCode
Trash.
panarchy
There's a reason the Americans discovered how to make atomic weapons first and it's because their researchers were living under a less oppressive state that wasn't motivated by anti-intellectualism and dumb ideology.
Jimmc414
While I agree in spirit on the concern about political interference in science, the Manhattan Project was actually one of the most secretive, tightly controlled government programs in US history.
In addition many scientists involved (like Oppenheimer) later faced political persecution during the McCarthy era.
American atomic research succeeded despite, or perhaps because of, intense state control and funding
panarchy
Yeah it probably isn't the best project to highlight the sentiment, but it was well known one and immediately came to mind in a period that had the contrasting factor.
I don't particularly think that the secrecy or control of a single group really reflects on the overall culture however. We wouldn't call phreakers authoritarian just because they weren't publishing their exploits in the newspaper or letting any new person fully into their circle.
Also the prosecution and harassment of communists/leftists and minorities in the US during that era is why I stipulated less oppressive rather than unoppressive.
thisislife2
And it was an international project - the British were involved too, before the Americans suddenly cut them off.
defrost
But they didn't.
An Australian nuclear scientist working for the UK Rutherford (New Zealander) labs | Tube Alloys | MAUD program told them how to.
It took a while to convince the US scientists who were mainly interested in making big hot piles for power.
The actual building of atomic weapons (Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy) took place under a fully authoritarian ultra secret State directed militarily controlled program that cost a significant chunk of national GDP.
The example you chose appears to be both incorrect and the very opposite of whatever point you wanted to make.
panarchy
Interesting. How about we replace the USA (I mostly highlighted the US because that's where this site and the population that use it is based) with the Allies. And being authoritarian isn't about having secretive or highly controlled group (which makes sense given what they were working on and the stakes), but rather the general cultural interpretation of freedom perceived by those who are likely to be doing research. And while you can argue that the USA had authoritarian overtones then as well, the key point is that they weren't as overt as having to greet everyone with good tidings for your supreme leader and keep all your opinions strictly in line with the party's. Notes released from the German scientists (I think Heisenberg comes to mind?) revealed they weren't highly motivated by the regime's philosophy despite supporting it outwardly while those who were the most invested into the Nazi ideology never published much of note.
pokstad
But the Soviets made them second…
epistasis
Not because they trusted their scientists to be able to do it though. They used the plans stolen form the US instead.
joules77
Go deeper - why does anti-intellectualism emerge?
toomuchtodo
Nationalist populism sacrifices academics and intellectuals to create a divide between “the people” and the presumed said “elite,” which is then weaponized for political gain by the actual “elite” (political, economical, etc). These movements rely on emotional resonance and simplified narratives, as opposed to educated, informed discourse.
My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.
https://warwick.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/researchers_point_t...
whotheywut1
I say we launch the nukes and tell everyone who leaned into willful ignorance "aw how sad it didn't go the way you wanted."
panarchy
It also does this so that when intellectuals call out their bullshit they can more easily dismiss it as hysteria.
dehrmann
Headlines like this don't help.
"Scientific fraud has become an 'industry,' analysis finds"
SubiculumCode
This is extremely disappointing, and worrisome. Science is hard enough without this bull
Zaheer
Related paulg tweet: https://x.com/paulg/status/1951996478555357530
"The Trump administration has suspended the funding of Terence Tao and the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics at UCLA."
abetusk
Terence Tao's toot on mathstodon.xyz: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114956840959338146
noncoml
The replies to his tweet are a cesspool. Why do people still use Twitter?
ojbyrne
You have to be logged in to see the comments. So…
mindslight
Perhaps time to admit that he was wrong, that supporting an anti-intellectual fascist was a really terrible idea, and work to oust this child raper before he destroys any more of our country? Like I get that having to pay lip service to diversity the way we used to have to pay lip service to the virtues of golf was a serious affront to us tech nerds, and you got lost in the fervor. Your penance is that you now have much less leverage than you did before the election, and might actually have some skin in the game. Suck it up, and get to work.
intermerda
Paul Graham? Pretty sure he was anti-Trump before the last election.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those “enlightened centrists.”
hinkley
How much of this shit is even legal?
stouset
What does legal when you ignore lower courts, stop them from being able to issue injunctions, and have the Supreme Court in your pocket.
This last election was the end of American democracy.
63
We shall see. Undoubtedly much of this order will be challenged by some pretty powerful institutions and lawyers. Unfortunately, my confidence in the supreme court to uphold the fairest or least destructive interpretation of the law is at an all time low.
oaiey
Every day I wake up and see the United States drifting deeper into the totalitarian playbook. It scares the shit out of me.
esafak
"You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you."
EverydayBalloon
[dead]
null
pfannkuchen
I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy. It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science. Sure private donors have interest driven motives too but it would be diffuse across many areas not concentrated like a political party’s interests.
827a
The biggest reason is because we have a strategic multinational interest in remaining a leader in science. China (and other countries) will fund science. We have to as well, or we fall behind. Its national security.
We also have a strategic interest in draining intelligent individuals from other countries and nationalizing them in ours, which science funding plays a major part in doing.
One of the reasons why its complicated, however, is that the University environment has changed significantly in the US. What used to be academically-motivated institutions dedicated to the pursuit of education are now, essentially, just boring businesses, with more middle managers than educators. As one example, UCLA has a $9.8B endowment. Their athletics programs brought in $120M last year (though, they spent more, and the university itself had to provide gap funding of $30M. yup.) IPAM was receiving $5M/year in NSF funding (DMS-1925919). One obviously extreme way of looking at this: UCLA could have funded Terrance Tao's mathematics research group for six years with the money they used to save a hundred million dollar athletics program that's somehow still losing money.
This is a priorities issue for universities, through and through. But, Universities have slowly evolved their priorities to bloat their managerial class, which has forced them into impossible financial situations where the only way out is to bias investment into revenue generating verticals like maximizing the size of the student body at any cost on the backs of no-default student loans, international students, and athletics programs. Research takes a back seat.
I am all for public funding of science, but even many university researchers would argue, as a part of the system, that its broken (for reasons which extend even beyond those I've brought up). That's why I struggle to take a solid side on this issue; I want science, but what I want more is a University system that actually takes education and research seriously.
derbOac
The current system is broken but nothing about this administration is aimed at helping fix its problems.
With most actions, there's nothing being remedied, just an assertion of control. The action isn't tied to an improvement goal or a remedy with rationale.
As Tao noted, in cases where a remedy for a wrong is mentioned, the remedies being proposed by the administration do far more harm to any ostensible victims than the original asserted wrongs.
Nothing about their actions is in good faith in terms of improving academics in the US, nor do they even try in most cases to pretend to be trying to improve academics at all.
AdieuToLogic
> I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy.
Two reasons.
First, private philanthropy is neither sustainable nor sufficient in scope.
Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
> It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science.
Yes, relying on private entities to fund scientific research does seem like an obvious channel for corruption.
derbOac
> Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
rjbwork
Well, hundreds of elected representatives and a handful of judges have had to entirely abdicate their responsibility and power for us to arrive at this point. It's not just one guy.
energy123
Neoclassical economics has an answer!
The market can't provide public goods like basic research since it's non-excludable. This is a market failure, causing inefficient allocation of resources.
Therefore, the government has to provide it. This improves efficiency of resource distribution.
ajkjk
"why would the government pay for things that benefit the people that they govern and which those people elected them do?" what do you want a government to do?
kevinventullo
Is anything stopping private philanthropy from funding science today? Generally speaking it is in the government’s interest to support fundamental scientific research.
dragonwriter
Yes, the interests of private donors. Private philanthropy mostly feeds what private donors are interests in (weighted, of course, by having money to give, so for all intents and purposes, it goes where the interests of the superwealthy are.)
And those tend to be: things that are perceived by the donor as having high immediate returns, things that are perceived by the public as having high immediate returns and thus are good for buying status, and things that provide a convenient channel for the donor to exercise power via the donation, making it away to enjoy wealth while also getting a tax break for it.
Basic science doesn't tend to fit any of those, which is why science funded by private philanthropy is small compared either to government funding of basic science or total private philanthropy.
pfannkuchen
I’m not aware of anything stopping it except for perhaps how the system is set up.
Like if I want to fund a pet study that I’m interested in, can I just call up Harvard and offer the lab $1M to work on it? I’ve never heard of anyone doing that, but I’m not really sure why it doesn’t exist (which is why I’m asking if anyone else knows).
porcoda
That does happen: foundations will fund specific research and universities apply and get it. What is often different is that foundations rarely put out open calls outside the areas the foundation is specifically interested in. That is where government funding tends to be better: covers many more areas than foundations tend to be interested in. There’s nothing stopping foundations from doing that, but I haven’t seen it very often other than a couple calls here and there. I’ve been a researcher chasing money for decades: I’d love it if foundations would fill this role, but alas, they don’t so far. Plus, the scale doesn’t match: if you added up all the private funding that is available, it’s tiny compared to the federal science budgets.
ckemere
If there’s a specific researcher you want to fund, you can absolutely call them up. There will be paperwork around IP, independence, etc.
If you want them to do a specific experiment you’ll likely first need to convince them that it’s a good use of their time.
Harvard itself plays approximately zero role in the decision to do a study or not. (There are ethical oversight committees, etc.)
$1M total cost ($600-800k direct cost depending on terms) will buy you a postdoc’s time and effort for 5 years. Unfortunately most labs aren’t set up for a time/money tradeoff, so 5 postdocs for 1 year would be unlikely absent a really exciting project.
It definitely happens quite a bit!
ekr____
More or less. Corporations fund research all the time. Just to pick a random example, check out the acknowledgements on this paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/132
"This work was funded in part by NSF Award CNS-2054869 and gifts from Apple, Capital One, Facebook, Google, and Mozilla."
That said, private grant funding is just of a completely different scale than government grant funding. For example, NIH's annual budget is 48 billion and most of that goes to research (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget).
warkdarrior
Give Harvard's Office for Sponsored Programs a call and tell them you are ready to award $1M. It really helps if you already have a lab or PI in mind.
Office for Sponsored Programs
1033 Massachusetts Avenue
5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
617-495-5501
osp@harvard.edujghn
Because basic science is the sort of thing that no one funds, yet winds up being very useful at the applied science phase that people do fund. So it's useful as a community to fund basic science as it leads to really cool applied science where people can start turning profits
toomuchtodo
Because hope is not a strategy.
teaearlgraycold
Private philanthropy doesn't feel like it's free from corruption.
This ends science in the United States.
You can't really enroll graduate students for a 5 year PHD project if their funding can be pulled at a moment's notice like this.