Ron DeSantis signs bill to limit tenure at public universities

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

[jojoju1998]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

By limiting tenure at Public universities, Florida's going to lose out on the Hard science professors anyway , they won't stand for this.

There is alot of respect between the Hard sciences, and the Humanaities.

And with all due respect, the republican party.... that supports science ?

Many Engineers, and hard sciences are even more to the Left. And that's the truth.

[ilikeverin]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

[jojoju1998]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

[Person Man]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

[Person Man]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

What about subsidies that have already been given to oil and gas? Even if you agree that public welfare violates property rights, there are areas where the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the community align with property rights.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

Pretty gutsy of Obama to buy a mansion on the beach if the world is going to end.

[Gass3268]

Academic tenure is one of the most important foundations of a research university. Effectively getting rid of tenure would be a death sentence for the University of Florida. No serious academic would want to work there if they had options anywhere else. If anything, dragging them in front of a board every 5 years will only increase "ideological orthodoxy" or whatever he wants to call it.

Yeah but the loss of prestige of UF and FSU won't happen overnight, so it's a problem for (and that can be blamed on) DeSantis's successors.

Scott Walker did the same thing :


https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-college-professor-tenure-120009?_amp=true

Yes, and this certainly led folks to leave UW-Madison for less hostile climes and has done lasting damage to its prestige and consequently its research productivity.

As a Wisconsin alumn, this is all correct. A number of professors I had back in undergrad, most of the very good, left to go to states with better working conditions for professors.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Then we should privatize research grants more then if that’s the issue cause government subsidized things never can truly be “free” as the government has to actively choose which grants to approve and which not too .

That decision is usually made by people who do have political agendas as well so the this will mainly just provide more oversight over  unelected  bureaucrats which I generally support.

Major grant decisions (at places like NIH and NSF) are made by scientific peers, not by "unelected bureaucrats". It depends on the agency, but a few faculty send our scores in to someone working at the agency. The scores are based on rubrics that are available to anyone and tend to prioritize (1) general academic merit and (2) something specific to the agency (for the NIH, health outcomes; for NSF, "broader impacts", which is generally some sort of community impact or public science education). Critically, the "someone" (usually called a program officer) is someone who has also had academic training and probably has received several grants themselves at some point; it's seen as prestigious, if tedious, to become a program officer. The highest scoring proposals are then discussed as a bunch of peers, and the grants are ranked. Depending on the agency, the program officer may have a bit of discretion for grants that fall right on the boundary of being funded, but again it's based on the same criteria I outlined above.

Only about 10-15% of major grants are funded. I'd say the main issues with funding these days is that (1) one-in-ten isn't a great level of success, so you're incentivized to chase the funding obsessively rather than following the science, and (2) it's often the case that the rich get richer (e.g., you generally need pilot data to get a grant funded these days, but how do you get pilot data if you don't have money in the first place?). The amount of interference from "unelected bureaucrats" is small unless you consider faculty members to be "unelected bureaucrats". (But I think we'd all agree it would be bonkers for elected officials to evaluate scientific grants, right?!) Even then, the folks working at the funding agency aren't just random people with political agendas, they're usually scooped up from tenure-track positions by the NSF or NIH.

 I don’t have any problems with grants for hard science research

NIH and NSF don't just give money to "hard science research"; Republican senators have been targeting the social science directorate of the NSF for budget cuts for years. The grant that funded some of my training was singled out by Rand Paul one year as an example of "flagrant government waste" (except whoops I now do the things that he said the grant didn't accomplish). I also described how grant programs work for funders in education and other fields that you probably call "soft science". (I don't know how funding works in the humanities but it probably follows along similar lines. Grants are less important in those fields, though.)

I also find it funny that OSR with all due respect supports " hard sciences ", when his political party in my view, goes against even the most basic of science foundations.

Wrong you can believe for example climate change is real and believe the Covid vaccines are good without also believing you should try to :


- Get rid of the oil and gas industry through government regulations

- people should be forced to take the vaccines

So you can understand the science behind global warming and pandemics and still think that providing for Public Health and Ecological Welfare are not appropriate roles for the Government. That one's ability to avoid or recover from COVID or not be involved in a Global Warming related natural disaster is a private matter and a personal choice.

I do not believe destroying our economy and also destroying our ability to respond to threats like Russia and China are the way to go at all . The solution is actually encouraging more entrepreneurs  like Elon Musk And of course investing in nuclear energy , not using government regulation to destroy our current energy industry.

So  yes I believe generally in a free market solution to dealing with climate change not a government one .

What about subsidies that have already been given to oil and gas? Even if you agree that public welfare violates property rights, there are areas where the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the community align with property rights.

I support the tax credits that incentivize switching to alternate energy for example as I think that is a proper government role . I do not though support stopping drilling and etc cause that would cause disastrous effects for our economy.

I also support investing in nuclear energy , more hybrid work environments etc

[MasterJedi]

In effect what this will do is brain drain more people away from Florida who would work in these jobs. Will further the decline that conservative areas have over liberal ones and widen the gap. Though that IS the plan...

[Horus]

I actually don’t agree with that. We can barely get Americans to to stay in academia as it is. Don’t take away the one advantage of choosing that path. This just means more professors who can’t speak English and only import grad students from their own countries.

Bingo. "Populist" Republicans are perfectly willing to go the globalist route if it helps them look anti woke.

And the base eats it right up.

[jojoju1998]

In effect what this will do is brain drain more people away from Florida who would work in these jobs. Will further the decline that conservative areas have over liberal ones and widen the gap. Though that IS the plan...

Exactly.
Those " useful degress " would just go away to states that appreciate them.

Engineering, Hard sciences,

[Xing]

DeSantis is worse than Trump.

[Badger]

Btw you guys think I’m super right wing on this issue , but whenever these types of issues get discussed with my parents and other family members I usually am the most liberal member in the group on these types of issues .

 That is an absolutely idiotic comparison. No one here save yourself gives a rat's ass whether you are more  Or less liberal than your parents. If it's a far right and above all stupid policy, then The In fact some of your family may be even more right wing and/or stupid proves nothing.

[Badger]

Academic tenure is one of the most important foundations of a research university. Effectively getting rid of tenure would be a death sentence for the University of Florida. No serious academic would want to work there if they had options anywhere else. If anything, dragging them in front of a board every 5 years will only increase "ideological orthodoxy" or whatever he wants to call it.

Yeah but the loss of prestige of UF and FSU won't happen overnight, so it's a problem for (and that can be blamed on) DeSantis's successors.

Scott Walker did the same thing :


https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-college-professor-tenure-120009?_amp=true

 And Scott Walker was APO S generally, and definitely wrong here.  What is your point?

[Badger]

Anyway,  The whole point of tenure is for professors to be able to publish and write freely even for controversial ideas without without fear of being cracked down on by people such spots might offend. Thus despite people squawking on about how 10 years you know a lot about how tenure shouldn't matter in a public University because taxpayer dollars or some such, it's all the more vital they're considering that government pressure is more likely to clamp down on free speech.

But Hey, why should we worry? It's not like Rhonda sanchez has a proven history even in the last week of of trying to crack crack down on anyone anyone who opposes him politically in using the power of the state to do so right?

Oh wait....

[ilikeverin]

Btw you guys think I’m super right wing on this issue , but whenever these types of issues get discussed with my parents and other family members I usually am the most liberal member in the group on these types of issues .

 That is an absolutely idiotic comparison. No one here save yourself gives a rat's ass whether you are more  Or less liberal than your parents. If it's a far right and above all stupid policy, then The In fact some of your family may be even more right wing and/or stupid proves nothing.

I'm not sure that he's far wrong, actually. I think most people oppose tenure in higher education. Similarly, most people think that all universities "exist to give people degrees that give people jobs" and that my job is primarily "teaching classes". People are shocked when I tell them I don't "get summers off" (even though I have a 10-month contract, yes it's confusing) and that I don't "get holidays off" even though I'm a state employee. Most people have no idea what universities are for or why tenure exists - they think that, like, everyone gets tenure immediately as if we're a high school or something.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Academic tenure is one of the most important foundations of a research university. Effectively getting rid of tenure would be a death sentence for the University of Florida. No serious academic would want to work there if they had options anywhere else. If anything, dragging them in front of a board every 5 years will only increase "ideological orthodoxy" or whatever he wants to call it.

Yeah but the loss of prestige of UF and FSU won't happen overnight, so it's a problem for (and that can be blamed on) DeSantis's successors.

Scott Walker did the same thing :


https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-college-professor-tenure-120009?_amp=true

Yes, and Wisconsin is a perfect example of a state government doing everything they can to sabotage great public universities. North Carolina, too.

[LostFellow]

I think the funniest thing is that there's a good chance that those who argue that non-STEM is useless aren't even top of their class within STEM. I study STEM at an elite university and my peers who are the most accelerated and doing advanced research in the hard sciences all have respect for the social sciences and humanities since they understand how creativity and collaboration is needed for groundbreaking advances.

It's no coincidence that many scientific greats--Einstein, Newton, Russell, Da Vinci, Darwin, etc.--all had very fleshed out philosophical views and were involved in many soft-science and artistic circles.

This is really just a dig at OSR, but I can't help but think this is true.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Btw you guys think I’m super right wing on this issue , but whenever these types of issues get discussed with my parents and other family members I usually am the most liberal member in the group on these types of issues .

 That is an absolutely idiotic comparison. No one here save yourself gives a rat's ass whether you are more  Or less liberal than your parents. If it's a far right and above all stupid policy, then The In fact some of your family may be even more right wing and/or stupid proves nothing.

OSR has implied in the past that he's the only person in his immediate family who doesn't have a full MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN GENOCIDE BEST DAY OF MY LIFE perspective on Indian domestic politics, so I don't see any reason to believe his relatives are a worthwhile point of comparison on American domestic politics, either.

In any case, he's doing a valuable service for the forum by dramatizing the sheer idiocy of the "climate change is bad but the state doing anything about it would be even worse" mindset. Also, vanity spaceflights like the ones Elon Musk is known for dump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in one go than whole fleets of cars do in months.

[Person Man]

I think the funniest thing is that there's a good chance that those who argue that non-STEM is useless aren't even top of their class within STEM. I study STEM at an elite university and my peers who are the most accelerated and doing advanced research in the hard sciences all have respect for the social sciences and humanities since they understand how creativity and collaboration is needed for groundbreaking advances.

It's no coincidence that many scientific greats--Einstein, Newton, Russell, Da Vinci, Darwin, etc.--all had very fleshed out philosophical views and were involved in many soft-science and artistic circles.

This is really just a dig at OSR, but I can't help but think this is true.

For a Humanities degree, you need to have some sort of pedigree behind it to be valuable…

If Florida schools simply become the party’s trade schools then there is no point in teaching humanities or really doing research in anything. There’s a reason why we have no democratic enemies and our authoritarian enemies keep stealing our intellectual property. Even in the Cross of Globalism, when the United States became the 1000 week reich, the United States was relying on espionage to modernize its military and do its space program.

[Mr. Illini]

Academic tenure is one of the most important foundations of a research university. Effectively getting rid of tenure would be a death sentence for the University of Florida. No serious academic would want to work there if they had options anywhere else. If anything, dragging them in front of a board every 5 years will only increase "ideological orthodoxy" or whatever he wants to call it.

Yeah but the loss of prestige of UF and FSU won't happen overnight, so it's a problem for (and that can be blamed on) DeSantis's successors.

Scott Walker did the same thing :

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/scott-walker-college-professor-tenure-120009?_amp=true

Scott Walker did immense damage to the once-great University of Wisconsin. Invoking him weakens your point.