You did exactly what GP was commenting on - conflating something that happened occasionally in the past with policy that mandates it should happen every time today.

Yes, grants were given and revoked for political purposes in the past.

But what percentage of grant proposals were reviewed by an appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink? It did happen, but it was ad hoc and amateur. Today’s administration is formalizing Soviet-style political reviews of science.

It’s scary, and it’s a mistake to hold up occasional (but serious!) mistakes from the past to justify systematic evil today.

"You mispoke on that issue? No grant. You were of the wrong political perssuassion? No grant. Hurt the feelings of X group? No grant."

Are you talking about not getting the grant in the first place, or are you talking about grants being cancelled after they had been approved and you had taken the money and started doing the funded work?

Those two situations are different.

This is so wrong-headed of a statement that I’m actually shocked.

Do you even know how grants work?

You’re speaking about scoring designed to ensure that all Americans (any sex, poverty level, ability, creed) benefit from the use of tax payer money. This was a metric that was well understood AND EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED.

There was NO relationship between that and canceling grants.

Edit: less incendiary. I am just very upset with how confident people are saying things that are absolutely wrong for internet points.

Ever served on an NSF panel?

[flagged]

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, your post is factually wrong.

> A law which will be used from the opposite side just as well, as soon as the power switches hands again.

This is the real test. If these changes are so bad, will someone campaign bare on overturning these? Will the “other side” change it?

If they don’t, you know that they also agreed with it - this handwringing now is just for show.