Somewhat oddly, the Trump regime's initial moves to cut science funding went very broad. This is catalyzing solidarity & advocacy around the value of science (see comms featuring cancer cures & tech innovation). But their next move may be to try to drive a wedge b/w "good science" & "bad science". - ThreadSky

katestarbird.bsky.social • 6 days ago

Somewhat oddly, the Trump regime's initial moves to cut science funding went very broad. This is catalyzing solidarity & advocacy around the value of science (see comms featuring cancer cures & tech innovation). But their next move may be to try to drive a wedge b/w "good science" & "bad science".

Comments

tsdav.bsky.social•6 days ago

What's baffling to me are the science funding cuts to topics usually seen as political neutral, like cancer research, and to tech innovations that could potentially bolster state surveillance.

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

Baffling, indeed. And probably not strategically helpful for them. But they'll adapt and I think we'll see them start to explain that they had to pause so they could identify the "bad science" (everything else) so that the U.S. can more efficiently fund the science that feeds defense & big industry.

dokterrudi.bsky.social•6 days ago

Absolutely. Dinosaurs < UFO

merz.bsky.social•6 days ago

Not that they would recognize the actual differences, of course.

fangferric.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think she means, “good” science and “bad” science.

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

Indeed. "Good" science (to the Trump regime) = will feed defense and technology innovation that bolsters existing wealth. "Bad" science (to the Trump regime) = would place the needs of everyday people as its focus and guide technology development (e.g. AI and energy) through that perspective.

merz.bsky.social•5 days ago

I am not convinced that they really want to fund any science at all.

nailbomb3.bsky.social•5 days ago

this

merz.bsky.social•5 days ago

Maybe AI stuff, but the stuff they will want to fund is likely to have only a tangential relationship to what most of us would recognize as science.

scottlgreer.bsky.social•6 days ago

And, at what point do you start to ask if a person getting funding made it through the remains of the merit system or is receiving right wing pork? Changes at NSF suggest expert review is going to be replaced by even more administration stuff.

snowfolk.bsky.social•4 days ago

Pol Pot targeted scientists, doctors
and lawyers in a countrywide
extermination which triggered
the social collapse of Cambodia
followed by widespread famine
and, finally, the death of about
25% of the population.

Is Trump trying to top Pot with his purge of scientists, etc?
https://tinyurl.com/3hh65nem

drhello.bsky.social•6 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/noupside.bsky.social/post/3lp6av72uf22v

matthewboedy.bsky.social•5 days ago

I think we are already there, killing DEI grants in NIH for example

katestarbird.bsky.social•5 days ago

Yup. Same at NSF. We're definitely there already, but the response from science has begun to focus on defending basic science in general & may end up inadvertently (or intentionally in some cases) giving up on whole fields and science workforce initiatives that are critical for a healthy society.

anthonybarente.bsky.social•6 days ago

I feel like we see this strategy in recent court filings from HHS. A couple instances of publishing lists of grants they *didn't* terminate. A way to argue they are just separating good from bad science.

julialt.bsky.social•6 days ago

My question would be “how the … would they know the difference between good and bad science? Have they read the proposals like the multiple expert reviewers and oversight review panels have?”

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

Their good science/bad science dichotomy doesn’t rest on quality, but on politically-determined topics: nuclear=“good”, climate change=“bad”; AI tech advancements=“good”, understanding bias in AI=“bad”, etc.

recombobulating.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes. It's about the degree to which the discipline contradicts their ideology.

anthonybarente.bsky.social•6 days ago

So far this has helped label terminations as "arbitrary and capricious". But the good/bad wedge will certainly be there as they determine what opportunities will even exist in the future.

julialt.bsky.social•6 days ago

Yes, I realise. But it’s so utterly infuriating that they have no idea how science works, and how funding good science works (speaking as a reviewer of many past NSF applications)

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think that’s a good framing… something about political actors with no science training deciding the difference between good and bad science.

julialt.bsky.social•5 days ago

Yes, and without bothering to read it (let alone attempt to understand)

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

We can already see this in NSF cancellations, guidelines re: "priorities" & restructuring plans. The challenge for science advocates is to both communicate the value of science in ways that appeal to many Americans & not to shy away from defending projects that fall outside of Trump's "priorities".

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

If we craft our new landing pages around all the projects that line up with the new "priorities" — and exclude projects that e.g. serve underserved communities, feature social sciences, or center human flourishing wrt tech & AI — then we are going to reify their good science / bad science framing.

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

We have a tendency to retreat and defend the highest ground. But that concedes all the other ground to these folks & their strategic attacks. Unless we plan to gather strength there and go on an offensive, conceding so much rhetorical ground seems like an unwise response. We need a better strategy.

jasonrhody.bsky.social•6 days ago

Agree and hope that we can gather strength together across sciences, humanities, and arts -- the latter two often historically residing in that conceded ground. We need to protect funding & procedures in all federal agencies: NSF, NEA, NEH, IMLS, etc etc.

omfishient.bsky.social•6 days ago

📣 I really appreciate this well-thought campaign planning from @standupforscience.bsky.social - suggest that we all get on board their inclusive and strategic SUMMER FIGHT FOR SCIENCE! ☀️💪🧪

Teach-ins, op-eds, tabling, writing reps...something for everyone & every science

https://bsky.app/profile/standupforscience.bsky.social/post/3lp5vqftl6c2l

realpaulg.bsky.social•6 days ago

I aint bendin' no knee to these pricks.

irahyman.bsky.social•6 days ago

I worry as well about disinformation masquerading as science. I think the leaders of various administration departments are likely to present false information in the guise of science and promote that through the health/science departments. RFK Jr is already setting this up.

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

This is a different (though related) issue. I’m trying to argue that when we … as scientists and universities … craft our advocacy, we need to include projects and societal value from the areas the Trump regime wants to convince people are the “bad science.”

irahyman.bsky.social•6 days ago

Agree. We defend science. We shouldn’t just highlight cancer research. We need to defend the whole set of work that folks do and talk about the value of the work.

I mean, my field’s work on misinformation has been critical for improving police identification procedures and helping innocent people.

katestarbird.bsky.social•6 days ago

But even that last part… you featured the part of the work that doesn’t hit on the “bad science” as they conceived it. I’ve done the same. I find myself arguing about “things we can all agree on” which functions to reinforce their claim that other types of misinformation research are bad.

katie-did.bsky.social•6 days ago

oh! and the eugenics piece! "Priorities" will more freely reflect eugenicist approaches, unfortunately

katie-did.bsky.social•6 days ago

I think you're right. We already see this in the refusal to fund anything climate-change related and the inclusion of climate- related language on the "bad words" lists. We already know the push for vaccine "freedom" is anti-abortion, but RFK's "fetal debris" misinfo attacks "bad" science too.

katie-did.bsky.social•6 days ago

There are so many examples and the fact people can't envision how a study, like the ex. on fish cells eventually becoming a breakthrough in cancer treatment and their health and science literacy is in the toilet isn't helping :/

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply