“The Trump administration is taking a chain saw to America’s scientific research. The proposed 2026 budget calls for a devastating 37 percent cut in funding for biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health; a 56 percent cut in science research funding through the National Science Foundation; and further, major cuts in science budgets at NASA, NOAA, the EPA, the CDC, the Agriculture Department, the Energy Department, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Forest Service, and other smaller agencies. Make no mistake: This is a total war on science in America. If an enemy power wished to demolish one of the pillars of American economic, military, and political strength over the past century, this might be what they would do.
At first glance, these moves are so baffling that many observers are tempted to deny that it is happening. Even the MAGA faithful understand that science is part of what has made American great. So why has the administration declared war on science? To start, we should keep in mind that there is probably no master plan. Multiple overlapping agendas and factors are driving the destruction. But there is a deeper motivation at work too. The conservative movement in America—the same movement that decades ago demanded science as the answer to Sputnik—has turned its back on the very idea of science.
That’s because the conservative movement has become an antidemocratic movement, and it understands at some level that the truth is its enemy. Scientific research is in some respects collateral damage in a wider war on democracy.”
Facts and the truth are the enemies of authoritarian regimes; both must be attacked consistent with the fascist right’s war on democracy.
Perhaps you could post an example or a source illustrating any specific project/item/whatever that has been cut from 'science' funding that was doing any good for the American people?
I'll offer some examples of 'science funding' that absolutely needed to be eliminated:
". . .In September 2024 for example,
Science reported that a veteran neuropathologist running the National Institute on Aging's Division of Neuroscience–with an annual budget of $2.6 billion–had probably falsified images in key studies used to justify developing novel drugs for Parkinson’s Disease—an effort that carries an additional price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars. “I’m floored,” Mount Sinai neurologist Samuel Gandy told
Science during an interview. “Hundreds of images. There had to have been ongoing manipulation for years.”
Other high-profile fraud cases underscore the problem: take Anil Potti, a Duke University researcher who
faked cancer trial data, misleading patients and squandering millions in grants, or the infamous case of Woo-Suk Hwang, whose
fabricated stem cell research misled global science for years. And the problem persists. Harvard’s prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute was forced to retract seven studies just last year following the discovery of
manipulated images in the research.
Academics who rely on federal grant funding will insist that these fraud cases represent a few bad apples, unfortunate outliers that besmirch the reputations of researchers who do good work. This analysis misses the mark, however. “Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals,” The Wall Street Journal
reported last May, “leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue.” . . ."
". . .This leads to a related but equally troubling concern: federal funding is often used to advance political causes with zero scientific merit. Examples run the gamut of academic disciplines. From
climate change and
infectious disease research to
pediatrics, there is ample evidence of scientists incorporating ideological dogma into their conclusions. It’s what science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr. calls
tactical science: research “designed and constructed to serve extra-scientific ends, typically efforts to shape public opinion, influence politics, or serve legal action.” . . ."
(That is followed by a specific example in the article)
The U.S. government spends over $160 billion annually on scientific research. This massive expense is marketed to taxpayers as an investment in groundbreaking research that fuels innovation and discovery. In truth, much of the federal science budget is expended on questionable and even...
www.acsh.org
Just because a program has 'science' in its label--even that claiming to be for 'the children'--doesn't mean that any 'science' of value is being eliminated by responsible government.
My ultra leftwing daughter admitted she was research assistant for what she knew were absolutely bogus scientific studies at Stanford. I myself have been research assistant for other academics elsewhere that I knew were not on the up and up.
Again calling it 'science' does not make it science any more than calling a table a horse makes that table a horse.
