
The Science is Unsettled by Torpenhow-Hill
There is an uproar in the science community at the moment over the budget cuts that President Trump is proposing. Apparently all the colleges will be closing and people will die. How bad is it? A bit of AI fu (because I refuse to dirty my internet with MSNBC or that ilk) finds:
“President Donald Trump has proposed significant cuts to federal research spending for the 2026 fiscal year, which begins on October 1. The proposed budget calls for a 37% reduction in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and more than 50% for the National Science Foundation (NSF), marking unprecedented reductions for these major science funders.
Additionally, the budget seeks to eliminate most federal spending on climate and ecological research and would cut NASA’s science budget by more than half, potentially ending major planetary missions.
The Trump administration has also moved to cap indirect costs for NIH research grants at 15%, which would reduce billions of dollars in funding for critical research aimed at developing cures and treatments for diseases. This policy has been met with legal resistance, as Congress has included a provision in annual appropriations bills since 2018 explicitly prohibiting such changes.
The administration’s broader efforts to slash science budgets have extended to other agencies, including the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, which would see a 14% cut to its budget, reducing it to $7.1 billion.”
Thank you AI for doing my dirty work. Let’s see, National Institute of Health just formally cut funding for gain of function research IE the research that brought us COVID so that will save us a dollar or two. Furthermore, even though he’s got a golden parachute that’s the envy of wall street, we’re not paying Fauci millions a year so there is that. And Robert Kennedy has said that he’s going through the department with an ax to eliminate redundant positions. What the private sector calls deadwood.
I had to look up the National Science foundation. Well, nsf.gov tells me that they support 1,900 organizations and 350,000 + teachers, researchers and entrepreneurs across the country. What the website doesn’t tell me is if there is any oversight or if any of those projects are meaningful, useful or replicable. Nor are we told if the taxpayers would have voted for them if given a choice. I’m going to take a wild guess.
The budget seeks to eliminate most federal spending on climate and ecological research. I’m going to point and laugh and move on. For the DOE I did a quick abstract search using Arizona as a keyword. Enjoy the results. https://pamspublic.science.energy.gov/WebPAMSExternal/interface/awards/AwardSearchExternal.aspx. Then tell me which of these you want your tax dollars to fund.
Last but not least, NASA. Who does not remember the glory that once was NASA? I watched Neil Armstrong take the first step on the moon. But not only were they glorious, they were the only game in town. By law. Between 1958 when The National Aeronautics and Space Act created NASA and 1984 when the Commercial Space Act provided a medium for private entities to attempt space it was NASA or nothing. And for those of us who remember the great Ma Bell days or the USPS or Public Education, well we’re a might bit skeptical about federal monopolies on – anything. And the shuttle program (IMO and I’ll own it) didn’t get shut down because of the mistakes that were made. The shuttle program got shut down because the government is by nature risk averse when it comes to public optics and human lives. (Except for the military but that’s another post.) So, while I sympathize deeply with the NASA people, they’re doing, not much by order of their bosses.
Further more we have problems. Government spending on research drives out private spending. Not only does the government pull researchers from private industry, it then dictates what will be researched creating a monolithic worldview. The taxpayers have no choice as to whether or not they want to pay for the spending. There is no oversight regarding the spending. And we have a deficit the size of a hyperbolic stereotype.
There used to be private labs in industry, Bell, Westinghouse, and GE are the ones I know off the top of my head because I’m a tech. Hospitals and colleges used to find funding from charities or businesses. Even now, Saint Jude’s Childhood Cancer Center still pulls money from donations because societies tend to want to protect kids. But providing tax breaks for research equipment got conflated by a specific subset of politicians with “loopholes, regressive tax policies, and corporate welfare” and not taxing capital expenditures for research became tax any capital equipment. And the private labs became endangered species. But the public pork kept rolling and became a secure source of funding. All you had to do was-what you were told. Awesome way to do science. Much bold. Very replicable. Totes good for anything. OK not really.
And oversight. Datarepublican could be working the rest of her natural life trying to find who is spending what on which programs and who ordered them. They weren’t ordered by congress who are at least theoretically supposed to hold the purse strings. And what science did we get? Masks. A vaccine that people are starting to sue for damages over. In some cases successfully. Mutilated children. And the deficit. The interest on the deficit is larger than the budget for the armed forces. And I’m over the tears and wailing. We need to fix the spending and “science” especially what has been passing for it does not get an exemption. I leave you with an NIH example from the Tweets:






























































