Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with this move, but the people who lost these positions were in temporary advisory roles. This isn’t a career job for them.

The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long. Between 1/4 or 1/2 of them would have been replaced during this presidency, and whoever gets placed now will start to be replaced by the next administration.

As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory committees overseeing government decisions. They’re definitely not known for inviting foreigners to come join their government to oversee their spending. So if you’re implying these people are at risk of going to China to serve the same role, that’s way off the mark.

View on HN

I expect this will have downstream effects on more careers than just these 24 people.

> As for China: They’re not known for having independent advisory

They’re not. But I’m currently pessimistic about America’s ability to maintain technological leadership beyond the early 2030s and I’d like to see what the alternatives are. (I’ve been impressed by what India is doing, both in research and commercialization, as I have with Ukraine. I’ve been impressed by EU research.)

I don’t share your optimism that these positions will be replaced. I don’t know why you think they would be.

Oh they’ll be replaced, by toadies and GOP Youth interns looking for a salary and resume boost

China absolutely has a national academy of sciences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Academy_of_Sciences

They have and do oversight, generally with scary commie sounding names but presumably the same day-to-day as the NSF.

The article talked about the board pushing back on political decisions. Do you really think Chinese oversight boards push back on political officers? Do they take to the press to lambast Xi?

Politics are different in China, certainly nobody is going to the press.

But they also have a culture where lots of politicians have technical degrees, and they've gotten better results as far as government and science. You don't have the problem of "global warming isn't real for cultural reasons" in the first place.

The Soviet Union had great math & science research infrastructure and leaders who were science and technologists. They still had political pressure that conflicted with science.

Why would we think China is any different?

You don't have to be convinced. I'm in Wuhan right now and self-driving cars and autonomous delivery vehicles are pretty common. They have nice electric Buicks here because the local org that worked with GM for the brand has surpassed GM at building Buicks.

The US of 2026 has specific ideological pressure against scientists that is not nearly as bad as the cultural revolution but in the same direction.

It's not about which science would be good for Americans, or what would be the most effective directions to pursue, which way is best to minimize corruption while we invest in things that benefit everyone -- it's about the existence of particular scientific facts being politically incorrect therefore they must be suppressed, and additionally these scientists are effeminate elites and we hate them.

China does not have these attitudes in 2026. They have problems and are not perfect but they're probably better on "give scientists the ability to influence policy".

My priors are that you can’t remove political pressure on science _anywhere_ it’s a natural outcome of humans doing science. And I’m responding to the specific idea that technical political leaders are immune from that. History shows that’s not true.

Right, terrible example. China is the largest emitter of global warming gases and it’s growing. They don’t care for economic reasons, just like other nations don’t care for cultural reasons. Compared to democracies though, China also has added internal, domestically approved genocides, jail time for Hong Kong dissidents, IP theft, external influence ops, and are currently rattling to destroy a neighboring democracy. But I’m glad to hear their middle managers are actually technical. That’s good news for everyone.

Cumulative Historical Emissions (1850–Present):

US ~537Gt

China ~312Gt

>The article says 8 members are replaced every 2 years and the terms are 6 years long.

So it's similar to working for the UN or IAEA where most jobs are fixed term.

Oh so only 1/2 to 3/4 of them were terminated far outside of norms. I guess only 50%-75% corrupt anti-science activity is totally ok.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com