These grants were funded through normal nsf scientific processes by experts. The report refers to that funding as “diverted” because they don’t like the content, which is just manifestly dishonest. The are implying that the funding was stolen or decisions made maliciously.
That report does not have truth or valid data as an intent. His commentary at the end shows where this whole argument, and the larger rationalist movement, fails when it encounters the real world. To him the false positives are errors that affect the data and larger claims. To the people creating this false positives are beneficial because they dishonestly multiply the claims they are making. The tell is that it is so easy to do this analysis and no one bothered.
Both this response and the original report also fundamentally misunderstand how grant reviews and broader impacts work.
> It reflects poorly on the Biden administration that you could only get a grant to cure cancer if you suggested you might teach an underrepresented minority child about it.
Implying that this is specific to the Biden administration is taken as true by this re analysis. It has been a review criteria since the 90s. An honest attempt at this work (I’m not even sure that exists) begins by looking across administrations.
But honestly it’s only been in the last few years review panels began to care about broader impacts besides “yup it’s there”. Pi’s pick there own broader impacts work. Most of this is all congressional mandated.
Stop taking lying about things as counter argument because it’s not. This is why the rationalist movement will always fail in the face of reality.