37 pointsby SubiculumCode6 hours ago6 comments
  • vasapin4 hours ago
    Aside from the couple of daft suggestions outlined in the article, this doesn't seem so bad. A mountain being made of a molehill, perhaps?
    • sega_sai3 hours ago
      I guess you are happy with this: "Staffers there who may be political appointees and not necessarily subject matter experts sometimes ask for substantive changes in the research."
    • gmueckl4 hours ago
      What about the automatic scanning for politically inconvenient keywords then? How do you figure that this isn't bad?
    • 40four4 hours ago
      Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:

      “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… “

  • 40four4 hours ago
    To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines.

    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.

    • SubiculumCode4 hours ago
      It is a factual title. There are no emotive words in the title. If it evokes emotions, it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing.
      • 40four3 hours ago
        It’s not a “factual” title.

        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 to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, 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 :)

  • ChrisArchitect4 hours ago
    Related:

    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

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48313687

  • sega_sai5 hours ago
    "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it."
    • noosphr5 hours ago
      It wasn't the party that made the replication crisis.

      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.

      • eigenspace4 hours ago
        It also wasnt The Party who identified the replication crisis, and started the work of fixing it.

        Science is a self correcting mechanism, monarchism is not.

        • noosphr4 hours ago
          The crisis has been ongoing since the 80s and isn't slowing down.

          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.

          • SubiculumCode4 hours ago
            Maybe because the crisis isn't a crisis. It's a 1) examining tough things with a lot of noise and low funding prevents adequate sampling
      • applfanboysbgon4 hours ago
        You should care at least as much as if someone pisses in the cup you're drinking from, because regardless of the merit of the 'science' being produced in certain fields, the findings of bad studies are nonetheless breathlessly reported as objectively true Science, becoming "facts" that influence who your fellow less-discerning citizens vote for and influence how those voted in approach policy decisions. The state of scientific research is bad enough, but it can become much worse when actively applied to propagandistic ends (moreso than it already is).
        • noosphr4 hours ago
          Scientists have been pissing in all our cups for longer than I've been alive. That you're arguing what concentration of urea is acceptable is part of the problem.

          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.

          • applfanboysbgon4 hours ago
            "Burn it down" is not on the menu. Your options are "bad science, used to mildly propagandistic ends, mostly in the form of lobbying public policy via bought-and-paid-for studies" or "bad science, used to extremely propagandistic ends directly by the state". Even if the option you would prefer is "good science" or "no bad science", you live in the real world and are currently being presented with a society making the choice between the actual options on the table rather than fantasy options.
            • DiogenesKynikos3 hours ago
              What we have right now is, "Mostly good science, which produces a constant stream of major advances, but which is subject to the same pressures and failure modes as any human endeavor, such as bias and financial interests with ulterior motives."

              If you want to improve that system, relying on people like RFK Jr. (a crackpot who rejects basically all of modern medical science, right down to the germ theory of disease) and Trump (the most corrupt president in US history) is crazy.

          • kristjansson4 hours ago
            yes yes the solution to some debatably valid social science research is to burn the entire epistemological method and practice to the ground. We'll surely find something better to replace it in its absence.
      • platinumrad4 hours ago
        The Party certainly isn't going to solve the replication crisis. It's just going to pressure researchers to publish a different set of unreplicable results.
      • DiogenesKynikos5 hours ago
        Universities have produced medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough.

        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.

        • noosphr5 hours ago
          Clinical trails have produced medical breakthroughs, peer review gave us leeches.
          • monkpit4 hours ago
            False dichotomy
          • DiogenesKynikos4 hours ago
            How do you think medical treatments make it to the stage of doing clinical trials?

            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.

          • clipsy4 hours ago
            Clinical trials don’t happen until there’s a treatment to try.
      • nxobject4 hours ago
        [dead]
  • ksajasdasj4 hours ago
    TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government. In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.
  • maxfraud90005 hours ago
    This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?