Hacker News Reader

Comment by WillPostForFood | Hacker News Reader

Not that different than the author of this article. Is she a neutral scientist acting in the best interest of science? No, she is a Biden political appointee:

Nelson was deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and principal deputy director for science and society of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Is she even a highly qualified? She has a Ph.D., but in what?

Nelson earned a Bachelor of Science degree in anthropology

She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003.

View on HN

Being appointed by a former president makes her unqualified to comment on the subject how?

If you want to disagree with her commentary, do so on its merits. Dismissing her arguments because of who is making them is ad hominem fallacy.

You're using a person's associations as an excuse to avoid engaging with their ideas.

That's the exact argument that I was responding to! The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because? Surely you looked into the arguments, and judge them without bias, and didn't jump to a conclusion based on his associations.

They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.

> They are both political appointees, you like one and don't like the other is just political bias.

No: one was appointed legally, the other was illegally installed in an unconstitutional power grab. That's all that matters.

> The parent post's claim that the current President's lawyer is unqualified, because?

Because so far every appointee by Trump has been, objectively, less qualified than the people they replace?

There's no bias in that, it's just looking at credentials. We have people in public health who have never worked in healthcare. We have people leading the DOD where their only battle thus far has been alcoholism. We have a surgeon general who can't even practice medicine. I mean... what pattern are we noticing here?

Are we just supposed to play stupid forever, in pursuit of some "fairness"? We're not blind, we're not deaf, we can understand what's going on.

Technically it's a genetic fallacy /nitpick

Oh no, not a Ph.D. from NYU and a science policy leadership role under a president—how scandalous! Imagine thinking someone who specializes in the intersection of science, society, and governance might be... qualified to advise on science and society. Her research literally focuses on how science and technology shape—and are shaped by—social forces. But sure, let’s pretend like policy isn't supposed to involve people who understand, you know, people.

Ph.D. in American studies - that you cut that out is... notable.

There are no scientific qualifications in her education.

Oh please—spare us the performative gatekeeping. “No scientific qualifications”? She led the Office of Science and Technology Policy and served on the National Science Board. Her expertise is in how science operates within society, which is exactly what her job required. You think only lab coats get to weigh in on national science policy? That’s not how interdisciplinary governance works—unless you’re allergic to the idea of social context in science, which, frankly, explains a lot.

> she is a Biden political appointee

The obvious difference is stated in the post you are replying to: "Congress hasn't approved him."

> She earned a Ph.D. in American studies from New York University in 2003.

The NSF funds humanities/social science grants, so it needs experts in those areas. Note that she is deputy director for science and society. This funds work associated with history, sociology, etc.: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/sts-science-techno....

Why is being a Biden appointee grounds to assume she isn't acting in the best interests of Science?

Never said she wasn't acting in the best interest, just that she is a political appointee with no science education, and very little in her resume to suggest she is qualified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com