National Science Foundation: US no longer ‘uncontested leader’ in science

Who cares all that much about being the "uncontested leader" in science?

Isn't there a more important question to ask here, namely how the US compares to other countries in bringing "traditionally marginalized peoples" into the R&D workforce.

After all, when one factors in the impact on social justice, there's a big difference between a discovery being made by the oppressor, e.g. the "douche-bro entitled STEMlord" that Scott Aaronson talks about in this recent blog post:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4522

versus one made by the objects of their oppression, e.g. all of the women who are being denied "free and conveniently located childcare that makes a colossal difference to women's choices of whether or not to stay in STEM."

So let's stop fretting about "global leadership" (that's kind of a testosterone-driven thing anyway) and focus our attention instead on making sure that lactation stations are installed in all laboratories that receive government funding. The requested childcare centers should quickly follow though.

Caught up in political issues, we're slipping and they are closing the gap. This is unacceptable.

Congressmen love gaps. Sadly I do not think the NSF is a force for good in US science. It's panels are merely mechanisms for old scientists to slow down the young and the top five universities to cement prestige. It's puny hard won grants are like millet turning doves into ravenous pigeons.

It's been sapped of all virtue by decades of neglect, malice and deprivation.