Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
jkestner
epistasis
I was helping some people working on their phase I SBIR throughout the first year of Trump, and they often didn't know who to report to, as the firings were so relentless and pointless and completely disorganized. They got the highest possible rating upon completion, but have not been able to apply for Phase 2, so the project is effectively dead as they pursued other opportunities.
It's hard to imaging a more wasteful and destructive set of actions over the past year, except just shutting it all down. Money was still spent, less than usual, but in a way that ensured it was squandered, and that seeds that were planted could not grow.
However, it was apparently reauthorized on April 14, as my NIH newsletter this week linked to this April 21 announcement that SBIRs and STTRs are back!
https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news...
trinsic2
Im not getting how trump can fire anyone? Does he have the authority to do that?
epistasis
The US government is not currently in a state of following the law or constitution. People get fired, and if authority was not there, a lawsuit 9-18 months later might rectify it, and in the meantime the fired employee has moved on. DOGE cuts were extreme, capricious, and the only rhyme or reason was to try to hyperpoliticize the science to meet what people were guessing that Trump would want. On the grant side, they cut grants in an explictly racist way, according to a Reagan-appointed Republican judge that ruled aganist them way back in June of 2025; what was the remedy? Merely to reinstate the grants.
Who is going to stop a lawless Trump administration? Eventually the courts, at least at the lower levers. The Supreme Court is hyper political and continue making politically-driven rewriting of law, at least as much as the public lets them. Congress has completely abdicated their constitutionally mandated roles, such as being in charge of taxation and tariffs. The government has been completely taken over by a single party, and that party is burning the Constitution and its principles.
As for another example of gross mismanagment, of many many many more I could go on about, the National Cancer Institute's review board was completely disbanded, and put under the National Science Foundation where reviewers have less cancer experience, for example. To a pointy-haired-boss, that might sound like a cost savings measure but it's still the same cost, you just have less experienced people doing reviews.
All this is happening and getting reported on, but it doesn't get attention because every day is pure chaos filled with outrageous violations of what used to be normal activity in the government. And its all covered up by the most popular mainstream news sources, and there's a large body of the US population that has been completely brainwashed and literally refuses to accept any criticism of the Trump administration, outright rejected facts because it hurts their feelings.
gte525u
SBIRs have been mucked up since last fall. The program lapsed and it just got reauthorized for certain departments. Without that reauth only those who had phase 1's could apply for phase 2's.
epistasis
Hey got any details about how to apply for a phase 2 if you had a successful phase 1? I know a group that would be very interested...
gte525u
It depends - some agencies you can apply directly without doing a phase 1. Others you need talk to the TPOC of the Phase 1 to find out the process or you have to be invited.
In the current environment - I would contact the TPOC - it could just be stuck in limbo.
2ndorderthought
I know several people who have. They cannot even get awarded funds right now. All funding is being directed to grant mills.
undefined
cozzyd
some of us are also scientists who hold NSF grants (and hope to continue to hold them...) :)
undefined
matt3210
There’s only one reason to get rid of all the smart people, shenanigans are afoot.
hn_throwaway_99
Dr. Jessica Knurick has done a great job IMO breaking down how authoritarian governments co-opt science to their own ends and end up destroying it in the process. Here is one such article, https://open.substack.com/pub/drjessicaknurick/p/the-authori..., but she has lots of posts and short form videos explaining the topic.
datsci_est_2015
Another example, aside from Lysenko, is Elena Ceausescu. Basically used her position of power as wife of the authoritarian figurehead to enforce her own version of scientific reality.
cmiles74
This quote in particular struck me as way out there.
“Maybe one way to say it from the administration's perspective,” Stassun says, “is that this group of presidential appointees was advising the Congress to not follow the president's wishes."
bhadass
its very transparent what they're doing
they're almost certainly going to replace all the board memebers with political loyalists. the board members served six year terms specifically so they'd span multiple administrations and stay independent.
firing them all at once lets you stack the entire board with people. it's not about making science better, it's about removing the people who'd say no.
AnimalMuppet
That works... for the duration of this administration. Given the precedent, though, there's no reason for the next president not to fire all the new ones and replace them again.
undefined
undefined
conception
[flagged]
undefined
undefined
kenjackson
So is this a 2400% reduction in the number of NSF board members?
kelipso
That would leave one remaining member lol. I guess it would be infinity percentage reduction according to his math.
tempestn
This is a reference to RJK Jr's pronouncement that Trump has a "different way of calculating percentages". Seems apt to me in this context.
Terr_
Very much another "Emperor's New Clothes" situation.
If the pathology was entirely within his own privately-owned company that'd be one thing, but Americans are going to continue to get hurt because of it.
undefined
JumpCrisscross
What are the equivalent institutions in China? Do they do open houses?
Aurornis
I disagree with this move, but the people who lost these positions were in temporary advisory roles. This isn’t a career job for them.
The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long. Between 1/4 or 1/2 of them would have been replaced during this presidency, and whoever gets placed now will start to be replaced by the next administration.
As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory committees overseeing government decisions. They’re definitely not known for inviting foreigners to come join their government to oversee their spending. So if you’re implying these people are at risk of going to China to serve the same role, that’s way off the mark.
jazzyjackson
I expect this will have downstream effects on more careers than just these 24 people.
JumpCrisscross
> As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory
They’re not. But I’m currently pessimistic about America’s ability to maintain technological leadership beyond the early 2030s and I’d like to see what the alternatives are. (I’ve been impressed by what India is doing, both in research and commercialization, as I have with Ukraine. I’ve been impressed by EU research.)
nixon_why69
China absolutely has a national academy of sciences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences
They have and do oversight, generally with scary commie sounding names but presumably the same day-to-day as the NSF.
stogot
The article talked about the board pushing back on political decisions. Do you really think Chinese oversight boards push back on political officers? Do they take to the press to lambast Xi?
citizenkeen
I don’t share your optimism that these positions will be replaced. I don’t know why you think they would be.
huxley
Oh they’ll be replaced, by toadies and GOP Youth interns looking for a salary and resume boost
tensor
Oh so only 1/2 to 3/4 of them were terminated far outside of norms. I guess only 50%-75% corrupt anti-science activity is totally ok.
joe_mamba
>The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long.
So it's similar to working for the UN or IAEA where most jobs are fixed term.
wak90
China is the only hope
smegma2
Why not find out and let us know? You’re implying an answer without knowing what it is
joe_mamba
Why do you ask? Do you assume those fired NSF workers want to go work in China now? Or that China manages its domestic variant of the NSF better and accepts people critical of the CCP ideology?
Spooky23
Our entire economy is built on scientific advancement and advantage. The dismantling of everything to maximize executive power in order to maximize grift and corruption will have effects for decades.
This is the American version of the cultural revolution. We’re pushing people to be plumbers instead of scientists.
throwworhtthrow
> Our entire economy is built on scientific advancement and advantage.
Devil's advocate: Only productivity gains, not the entire economy, are built on scientific advancement. But wages haven't grown with productivity in half a century, so the loss of scientific advantage won't affect wage growth, therefore the economy will be fine.
(I know it's not convincing, but it's the best I can conjure.)
joe_mamba
>We’re pushing people to be plumbers instead of scientists.
What?! Who's doing that? Plumbers and scientists are not interchangeable cogs. Big brain scientist won't make good plumbers and plumbers won't make good scientists.
And plus, so what if they would be doing it? Why do you make it sound like being a plumber is like being a leper somehow? The world needs plumbers too and they make a pretty penny. See that US warship that wasn't combat effective anymore because the shitters broke. You can't win a war with starbucks sipping scientists, you still need roughnecks willing to get their hands dirty, fight, build and fix things.
fc417fc802
I would tend to assume that the people overseeing the NSF are accomplished scientists. China has been more than happy to recruit those for at least the past couple decades. That said, I doubt this move negatively impacts their careers so I don't expect this alone would motivate any of them to leave the country. Other things might though.
> Or that China manages its domestic variant of the NSF better
Prior to Trump probably yes. Post Trump almost certainly.
> and accepts people critical of the CCP ideology?
Obviously not. But why are you assuming that those removed from their posts were vocal critics of the CCP?
throwaway27448
Most people in china are not members of the CPC. And yes, they clearly are more competent.
joe_mamba
[flagged]
dublinstats
National Science Board. Not the entire NSF.
dang
Good catch. I've replaced the title above with the article's HTML doc title.
(Submitted title was "Trump fires all 24 members of the U.S. National Science Foundation", which was probably just an attempt to fit HN's 80 char limit that had collateral damage)
Ms-J
Hi dang, I sent you an email about all my comments showing up as dead and another problem, could you take a look when you get a chance?
Thanks.
dang
I didn't see your email for some reason, but we banned your account around the time that you posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47725717, which is obviously not ok to post to HN, regardless of who you're talking about.
jesseendahl
There are so many bots/trolls on HN now, it's crazy.
wallst07
How do you 100% determine a comment is form a bot/troll?
AnimalMuppet
100%? You don't.
But when you see people confidently stating unreasonable things in short posts, it's a common tip-off for a bot/shill/zealot/troll. When they assume a starting point that is two standard deviations out of most peoples' Overton Window, and they don't defend it, just kind of "Of course X is true", that's someone who is blasting propaganda, not having a reasonable discussion. They just want to say "X is true" enough times that people start to believe it.
As I said, that's not 100%. For any individual instance, you can look at their posting history. But for a comment section, when you start to see such posts taking over more and more of the discussion, you can say that the discussion has been taken over with very close to 100% certainty, even if you can't be certain about any one post.
IAmGraydon
Simple. He just finds a comment he doesn’t like and attributes it to a bot because surely all real people agree with him and his infallible sense of things.
arealaccount
[flagged]
2ndorderthought
I tried codex but found out it's not about how the model is but it's really about how Claude is better.
Freedom2
Are they initiating or continuing curious discussion? If so, then by all means they are following the most important HN guidelines so nothing can really be done.
fc417fc802
Unfortunately there's a large grey zone (IMO) between what the rules forbid and curious discussion that's productive. Those that seek to game the system don't generally stand out as bad actors since that would hinder their goals.
rssoconnor
Time for scientists to return to the Invisible College: a guild of science that keeps their research to themselves for the benefit of their own membership.
tacocataco
Sounds like a industry wide union.
elijahwright
And so Vannevar Bush’s legacy slips away from us all…
big_toast
Interesting history. From the wiki:
"A Senate bill was introduced in February 1947 to create the National Science Foundation (NSF) to replace the OSRD. This bill favored most of the features advocated by Bush, including the controversial administration by an autonomous scientific board. The bill passed the Senate and the House, but was pocket vetoed by Truman on August 6, on the grounds that the administrative officers were not properly responsible to either the president or Congress."
Also mentions the preceding organization OSRD (Office of Scientific Research & Development) and that they had tried to exempt it from conflict of interest regulations.
rectang
Trying to find a silver lining and think positively...
Will a future administration have an opportunity to build something new and better from scratch which would not have been possible due to institutional resistance before it was all burnt down?
simonw
If we're really, really lucky.
Destroying institutions is one heck of a lot easier than building new ones.
Tanoc
It's not even about rebuilding. Some things when destroyed can never be recreated, like trust, oceanliners, or the practice of Dísting. The initial event of destruction creates an expectation that it will happen again. Once it does happen the process accelerates itself until the full expectation is that whatever thing, concept, or practice can never exist again as anything more than a fleeting revival.
undefined
SXX
Institutional longevity is what differs developed countries from failed or failing states. Whole point of having institutions is to make sure rules dont change every 4, 6 or 8 years.
Some amazing new administration can come up with tons of good ideas, but they will only become real institutions if they survive for decades to come. Institutions are not just government agencies, law or people. Tradition and longevity are probably even more important.
Do you want to build a company in a country where all the law, tax code and regulations are replaced with amazing but brand new one every 4 years? Probably not?
And changing rules are much worse for scientific research because most often it span decades or even generations of scientists. People will just choose to go live and work somewhere more stable.
selectodude
That’s the best case scenario - requires a lot of people currently involved in this to be jailed or executed before we can even begin to move on though. I’m not super optimistic.
BLKNSLVR
Let us not say executed.
It's a harsher punishment that they live to see the rebuild of what they turned to ash.
datsci_est_2015
Let us not hesitate to seek justice.
I fear that the capture of American media and the DOJ is too far gone, and that following through with proper punishment for the naked corruption of this regime would be unpopular. “Let bygones be bygones.”
Oh, to live in an America where white-collar crimes and financial treason were actually punished…
brewdad
No. Executed traitors can’t be pardoned and reintegrated into whatever follows MAGA a decade from now.
juniperus
Describing the political machinations of institutional academia as a category where summary executions are applicable is the type of thing that led to the Soviet Union instituting Lysenkoism for decades and other profoundly anti-intellectual absurdities since all the academics were just randomly killed for a generation. We don't need that. That's hysterical emotional overreaction which is the opposite of rational academic behavior. The NSF will just get funding in the next administration, this isn't the end of the world. If they just hasten the grant awarding pipeline in 2028, it'll be a blip in the scheme of things lol, these grants can be like 5 years long. You're talking about a field of very smart people, everyone is just being more frugal and putting off big purchases and doing research that isn't expensive and things aren't blowing up lol.
gorbachev
Even if so, it doesn't matter, because 4 - 8 years later it'll be reversed again. And because it takes longer to rebuild than dismantle, it will never be the same.
This is the cycle now. 180 degree turns in policy every 4 or 8 years. There's no long term planning.
China and Russia must be enjoying this.
ernesto905
From the administration's perspective, why was this a good idea? I'm scouring the web but I'm struggling to find a steel-man. My best guess is that this is to control where the research dollars go which I'll summarize below, but wondering if anyone has better ideas.
From what I've read it seems the administration is very anti-social sciences, and very pro nuclear, AI, quantum. Thought from what I can tell most of the funding already goes to the hard sciences [1]. There were cuts proposed over the last few months but they were shut down by congress [2]. I suppose by cutting off the head of the org it's an easier fight to cut funding FY2027?
[1]: https://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/all
[2]: https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2026/04/nsf-lags-trump-proposes-...
jwpapi
I’m trying to understand what rationale could be behind this decision. America has grandly benefitted hugely from their scientific community. All the hyperscaler could build up because the engineers felt good in America. This might not kill it, but it risks it.
What could be the reason he’s doing it, how does he benefit from it, or thinks he benefits from it?
chronofar
Perhaps you answered your own question. I think our confusion sometimes stems from assuming those in charge must want to benefit that which they are charged with stewarding.
bhadass
the honest answer is it's not really about science at all; its about removing independent oversight.
the "benefit" from his perspective is the same playbook trump admin has been running across every federal agency, he wants to replace independent experts with loyalists, remove checks on executive power, and redirect spending toward admin priorities.
the board members served six year terms specifically to insulate science funding from political cycles. that's a feature to everyone else and a bug to this administration.
jwpapi
Thank you
MaxfordAndSons
Seems pretty clear to me.
It A) gives business funding that would otherwise have to give up equity to VCS or sell to PE or whatever other forms of private, for-profit funding. And B) takes away money that could go to the military or ICE or other programs that could be used to concentrate Trumps power or aggrandizement.
> America has grandly benefitted hugely from their scientific community.
Has Trump and his friend benefited from this program? No? Then this doesn't matter.
jwpapi
Thanks
0xbadcafebee
An expected part of Project 2025[1]. The end goal is to install Trump allies as heads of every agency that matters to their agenda, and to shut down all agencies that don't. This way by end of 2028 there is nobody left in government who can speak out against what they're going to do next.
If you have not read Project 2025 in a while, I encourage you to revisit it[2]. In summary it's a point-by-point plan to take over the entire federal government in order to enforce a single political ideology and suppress dissent. You can track[3] it as it gets implemented.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 [2] https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade... [3] https://www.project2025.observer/en
0xy
[flagged]
solid_fuel
Ok. Since this is a very precedented and normal action, please link me to an article or press release from when Obama, Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, or Carter decided the fire the entire NSF oversight board.
angelgonzales
[dead]
0xbadcafebee
The current administration has openly admitted multiple times that they want to completely eliminate anyone from government who isn't "one of their people". Their current efforts, both the ones in Project 2025 (ex. reclassifying career civil servants so they can replace them all with partisan hacks) and those without (voter ID laws, gerrymandering, replacing the Fed chairman), are specifically designed to create a 1-party state.
I'll grant you, Clinton single-handedly passed more Conservative reforms than any Republican president ever has.
0xy
Neither the administration nor Project 2025 has said they wanted to purge government of people who aren't "one of their people".
Cite a specific page of Project 2025, or a direct quote from an administration official to the contrary.
2ndorderthought
In your mind all of this is perfectly normal? I just have to know
0xy
Yeah, Clinton fired substantially more of the public service.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
This should feel personal to a lot of us. I have hopes of applying to the Small Business Innovation Research fund (https://seedfund.nsf.gov), a program that gives small companies a good chunk of money without taking equity, in order to encourage development of technologies deemed of national importance. I’d be curious if anyone here has tried applying in the last 18 months.