Well you have a couple of chief funders of open science (as @jbakcoleman.bsky.social points out) cheering on cuts to government funding in the name of efficiency, so there's an overlap that allows the language of open science to be weaponised in this way.
Again, this is not a blame issue for me but points to the fact that (as I have said many times) the seemingly apolitical nature of science reform works against the (imo) real issues of labour and collective organisation.
Just to be clear, I agree with you that we have to look at the politics as part of science reform. But it's ok to just say that people with a different analysis are wrong, we don't have to say that they're enablers of a fascist attack on science.
Well of course the private funders are problematic, they're all billionaires. I don't see what that has to do with this. If all this would be happening even if all science reformers had agreed with you, then it seems to me that they didn't open space for anything, their words were just co-opted.
Comments