“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511
What's Happening to Science in America
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs.
The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”.
Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved?
The submitted title is editorialized, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow.
You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”.
You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)
Right now universities have all the trappings of science with none of the substance.
Do I particularly care than they are going to be bent to the ends of those in power?
Kind of.
The same way I'm a bit upset if someone pisses in the holy water at a church.
Science is a self correcting mechanism, monarchism is not.
Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down.
Universities are far past that point.
If the cure for it is to wait till the researchers die so new better ones take their place you just reinvented feudalism with tenure.
The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review.
You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.