White House budget proposal could shatter the National Science Foundation | Hacker News Reader

White House budget proposal could shatter the National Science Foundation

arstechnica.com

51 pointspseudolus31 comments

NSF grants are already hard enough to get as it is. A reduction of the budget to this extent would just make it a total waste of time to apply for NSF grants. It would have the effect of pushing academics further towards industry funding - which might be the entire point.

Industry funding is incredibly selective, and many industry funders are basically looking to turn university researchers into extensions of their R&D divisions. This will be disastrous for the concept of academic freedom - and the ability for people to explore interesting problems that might not have immediate commercial impact.

Conversely, you could equally argue that NSF spending on training graduate students, and on technology transfer, subsidies industry.

I worry that this will lead to a vicious cycle of fewer grad students in the US, leading to less industry in the US, leading to fewer grad students in the US, etc...

My story: it's a joke to be a grad student. Salary in 2012: $10,800 per year without housing.

Science research of the types funded by NSF are the best forms of US soft power, and also good will, if that is still an allowed concept.

If this is like yesterday’s coverage on HN of NIH and NSF budgets we can expect a lively and unusually engage political discussion here. I was hoping for a little sanity as during Trump 1. No such luck.

Time to get much more engaged.

Damn it, I was having so much fun figuring out the genetics of lifespan.

> Time to get much more engaged.*

Yes. And as a non-American following this from a distance, I don't understand what's taking the Democrats so long to start doing real opposition.

Established democrats are petrified of upsetting anyone. They have no real plans. Democrats are horrible at public relations and messaging, so they routinely get roasted by Republicans, despite being right most of the time.

Republicans control all three branches of government. Democrats are in the minority in the Legislative branch and, as such, have no real power. Add to that the capture of the Supreme Court by the Republicans, even legal efforts are unlikely to succeed.

This is what a plurality of US voters voted for so one way you can look at it would be "you make your bed, you lie in it." Too bad for folks who relied on the US government...

The splintered Republicans made it obvious over the last two years that they did not actually have control of the lower house. What they did get done was often done with help from Democrats. Perhaps they will be more unified; perhaps not.

It's their turn to be spineless.

> I don't understand what's taking the Democrats so long to start doing real opposition.

It could be political malpractice, but there's also debate about whether to "oppose all things" or more strategically wait for the enemy to harm themselves. ("Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. -Napoleon"

The NSF's budget is already below where it was supposed to be after passing the CHIPS act.

https://www.science.org/content/article/analysis-how-nsf-s-b...

I was pretty perturbed to discover an NSF grant I was involved with spent about 10% of the budget on-the-ground paying equipment and labor, while the other 90% went towards the university department that arranged for the grant. Not that the department head didn’t put in many hours over years of effort to establish that grant (among others), but it just seemed like comingling funds to me as an outsider, like, the money didn’t go to what the grant said it was for except in a tertiary way of “the phd students have to come from somewhere” but through a series of fumbles no research really came out of the project, but at least a middle school got a makerspace out of it.

I guess what I’m saying is, there’s a lot of people who have experienced what feels like government waste and voted for a party that promises to dismantle the bureaucracy, so I’m not surprised they’re making these moves.

Will the world be worse off for it, probably. Will the current crop of billionaires make up for it by funding public institutions like the Carnegies and Rockefellers? Doubt it. Maybe Europe and Asia will pick up the slack (and brain drain the USA as a result)

That sounds like a misunderstanding. Federal grants usually have excessively strict restrictions on what you can do with the money. To the extent that labs can't pay many reasonable expenses if they don't have other sources of funding.

Unless the project is particularly material-heavy, direct costs should be mostly labor costs, such as PhD student stipends and tuition, postdoc salaries, and summer salary for the PI.

I agree that this may be a misunderstanding.

Federal grant proposals require budgets that outline how you intend to spend those dollars along with text describing those line items. Some of this can be extremely detailed. These agencies have a lot of restrictions so yes, other sources are required in many cases.

Then as you spend those funds many of these grants will require monthly or quarterly (or even more frequent) text and budget updates.

Granted I didn't see the budget breakdown, just the total and what I saw spent. Could have been salaries towards people whose work was invisible to me but still important to the grant.

I thought the (I don't know the word) "pro business" voter liked funding public research? "Socialize risk. Privatize profit." and all that.

This is why: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/10/new-cruz-investigati...

(Not sure why I got downvoted. I am neither defending nor accusing, just making an attempt to explain)

This is such bullshit. Obviously 2/3 of NSF funding is not going to "DEI". These are a handful of people who have bad opinions and got relatively small grants that are a tiny fraction of NSF funding. One is $100k. Since when do we tear down all of American science because we don't like what a handful of professors have to say? This is such Nazi scapegoating shit.

The thing is, that’s not an explanation, or even an attempt at one. That’s just another example of what needs explanation.

It explains the viewpoint of the people making the decision

Note that the President's budget request is literally that: A request.

The power of the purse, insofar as legislating it, rests solely with the House of Representatives. They can listen to the request or completely ignore it or write up something in-between. The President's request has no weight, though it could be a useful indicator of the future.

In legal theory, perhaps, but given that House is controlled by Republicans, how many of them dare go on record opposing the will of their master?

The Republican Party's loyalty/obedience to Trump so far is unprecedented even in general terms, so it's reasonable to expect a lot of his requests will be reflected in the final budget.

We have seen the executive branch cut funding for life saving medication (putting untold lives at risk) and fire inspectors general without authorization from the legislative branch. What makes you believe the executive branch will suddenly defer spending authority to the legislative branch?

No kidding, this guy is so over the place! He says the executive has no say over the budget, but also later he says it’s okay for the executive to “audit” the approved and passed budget without legislative approval and cut spending.

That’s called impoundment, it’s been illegal since the 1800s.

The House holds the power of the purse, but the President is the sole holder of Executive powers. That is to say, Congress legislates the budget but the actual execution of that budget is up to the President.

If Congress feels the President isn't executing the budget as legislated, Congress can impeach the President. As for the judiciary, SCOTUS already ruled that the President enjoys absolute immunity in the course of executing his Constitutional duties.

So far the House "applauds"[1] DOGE, so all is well.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCH5zUKKpdE

Ah, so you’re just in favor of your guy getting to be the monarch. I see. No morals, you are just one of those people that bends or breaks the law when you think it’s beneficial to your side. You people disgust me.

Go ask Sartre.

Not a philosopher, your message has gone unheeded.

"Could"

The National Science Foundation has received an annual budget of approximately $9 billion, the vast majority of which is spent on research and research-related activities.

We shall see.

Please don't selectively quote in a misleading way. The full quote is:

> In recent years, the National Science Foundation has received an annual budget of approximately $9 billion [...]

In other words, that's the budget prior to the cuts. The immediately following sentence points out that the cut may be as deep as 66%:

> The cuts could be as deep as 66 percent, with one person indicating the top-line budget number for the National Science Foundation could start at $3 billion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com