Dude, every single government ever in the history of humanity works this way. The appointed administrators of ancient rome were scheming up ways to serve their benefactors without leaving a tablet trail that their benefactors opponents could complain about. When I worked for a podunk state department of a well run solidly blue state 15yr ago we did this. There were meetings with no agenda where they'd verbally go over what the new boss's (appointed positions at top of department, not the governor himself) inclinations were on areas of policy relevant to the department and there would be discussion about how to align to that. And this wasn't people who reported to the boss, these were line level workers and middle managers. This wasn't coming from the top down. This was the bottom simply knowing what was good for it.

And just to be clear, just because it's always like this doesn't mean you shouldn't hate it and hate them for doing it.

Of course he’ll be dead before the real multi-generational consequences take effect.

Despite posturing by some academic administrators, most folks have no social agenda for a country they recently immigrated to.

Looking at the US is looking at making Cyberpunk real. If you're not rich your vote doesn't matter you are just a useful idiot.

Further more saying things like "It is your fault that you are in front of my fist" is not productive. Being antiscience is the problem here not being antileft.

Science has been a big part of the US dominant lead but I think it is quite a stretch to say it is how America ascended. Historically it is better case that America ascended through industrial and commercial might which led to the victory in WW2 (in which the nuclear bomb was a small footnote in reality--much more important after).

The growth gains are how the funding produces an eventual return but this is increasingly globalised (i.e. there is not always a particular gain to Americans). Some company in Europe might be the one which wins the market, giving everyone lower prices but only the european taxpayer a special gain. There is a kind of tragedy of commons here. Science is probably advanced the most when there is a dominant industrial commercialising power which foots the bill?

I would entertain arguments for situations where huge amounts of taxpayer dollars might be required because the private sector doesn’t show up. But the bar has to be way, way higher than it has been.

If the state has cancelled research for 'impure' political motives, how would we know that it hasn't directed state research (and outcomes) for similarly impure political reasons?

There's an interesting contradiction in the popular discourse here at HN. The government is simultaneously characterized as unable to make the correct decisions and at the same time, characterized as the only viable mechanism to conduct scientific research. These two themes seem contradictory.

If they cannot make the "right" decisions or lack competence in leadership, it wouldn't be unreasonable to doubt the efficacy of their research leadership. How could they possibly identify the problems which are worthy of solving under these conditions?

If their leadership is competent, if they are correctly identifying the necessary research projects, then why do proponents of government directed "science" have so many gripes in regards to the direction which government science is directed?

Appeals to the status quo of state funded research as the only or best way to achieve outcomes requires a better argument. At best, I think you might offer arguments via pragmatism. It would be reasonable to expect that purely voluntarily funded research would produce different outcomes. As these pursuits would generally be directed towards creating positive economic outcomes, rather than political or ideological ones, we might also expect that these outcomes would be better along the metric of economic value. Politically funded research could reasonably be expected to better at achieving political or ideological outcomes.

However, these are arguments from principle. We would need to test it empirically for those caught in the Scientismic paradigm to accept the results. Under this model of argument, the existence of state funded research tampers with the results. We wouldn't know how a voluntarily funded research regime would function when competing state funds are polluting the pool. Researchers may find it easier to pursue state backed projects than pursue projects which would appeal to the value creation process. This is just one of the flaws in the argumentum ad antiquitatem approach.

Your argument would be appropriate if we were debating the amount of spending in the context of other spending, or relative to itself. But in isolation as some heuristic it's "not even wrong". The larger context is this same movement blindly destroying our scientific research institutions also just added $5T of new debt, with a large chunk of that being spent on nothing more than a spectacle of performative cruelty (ICE).

And so I have to ask - do you really want to be making an argument in support of indulging the mob in their desire to see people hurt instead of actually advancing as a species?

>it seems plausible that there are diminishing returns to fundamental research, and that those returns are conditional on the funding system environment. I think many people have concluded that the marginal ROI is negative or the system environment is prohibitively inefficient.

Or for a financial example closer to the subject - if I'm incensed by the overgrown and out of control NSA/DEA/ATF, extrapolate to harping on the need for less government in general, but then my arguments get taken up and only used to attack less hardened public-good-providing agencies like NPS and USPS - I haven't actually succeeded at my original goal! Rather my ideals have been abused to by people who don't actually care about my ideals, aren't looking to increase individual liberty, and merely want to destroy NPS and USPS - likely to focus on growing the type of agencies that I originally started off against!

As such, the motives of people actually carrying out the actions are highly relevant, and this is exactly why I keep coming back to discussing these motives. If the reasoning here is actually about money, we would expect to see reductions in costs across the board, perhaps some unevenness based on priorities, but still with the biggest cuts being on the biggest expenditures. However instead, we see $5T in new debt (monetary inflation), and increased wasteful spending on many things. Their goals are clearly not about fiscal responsibility.

So then if we're espousing an ideal of fiscal responsibility, it behooves us to condemn and distance ourselves from this administration. First, because they're burning the credibility of our lofty ideal rather than using it to create reasonable solutions in good faith. Second, because if they're cutting things based on a different metric than efficiently spending public funds, it actually means that public funds are then being spent less efficiently - so we're actually going backwards.

I dont see some obscure and transient conversation in a forum backwater as meaningful political action. There are no stakes.

To the extent there are policy implications, I would like to define a preferred policy position on a specific issue. I already know my position on $5T of additional debt. What is the point of talking about it?