5 ms·

Like this from the article: > When Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDKD), first got

Like this from the article: > When Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDKD), first got to the NIH 12 years ago, she wanted to increase research into the social determinants of health—structural racism in home-loan practices meant that nonwhite people got iced out of home ownership and generational wealth, which forced them to live in neighborhoods closer to toxic sites such as factories and highways, without sidewalks and amenities. “It’s a challenging field to quantify, but we’re getting to a place in science where we can start asking these questions,” Norton says. Now the topic is verboten in U.S. grants. “That whole line of research has been shut off and censored because some people find the words ‘structural racism’ offensive.” If you're a Republican, why should you want to fund people who dump on your view of the world with your taxes? Why do scientists feel free to talk this way about half the people who pay their salaries? It's just dumb to act politically and then get mad when people on the other side treat you as a political actor. My last gig was at a startup that worked on SDoH issues for people on Medicaid and you know what we did when the administration changed? We started emphasizing values that would resonate with the new funders and dropped the SDoH framing. Still helping the same people, doing the same work, just talking about it in their language. It makes me think a lot of people aren't in this to do good science or help people who need it, but want their team to win more than they want good outcomes.

amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
The better question is: Why is it that when republicans hear the word "racism" they immediately think people are talking about them? Are they afraid of what research on racism will show?
- rurp 3mo ago
  No that's a more partisan one, and is exactly the sort of thing OP was arguing against. If you want broad based support for research funding you will necessarily need support from a lot of people you personally find distasteful. You can either try to appeal to people across the spectrum and keep bipartisan support, or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash. As someone who hates the current administration and thinks it's doing untold harm to our future, I'm disappointed by how many people in the sciences chose option two.
  - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
    I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Because Republicans don't want it to be true? Is that the claim, or am I confused about what you are saying?
    - wins32767 3mo ago
      Part of the issue here is that the academy has lost the trust of Republicans. So even if there are results that institutional racism is a significant factor, if it's coming from someone who is "woke" in their views it'll just be dismissed. To them it feels like using their tax dollars to fund someone who is going to skew results so they have a club to beat them with. And a big part of the reason they've lost trust is that the academy doesn't acknowledge when it's being political (see "reality has a liberal bias" in this thread or your frame here, for that matter).
      - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
        The way science is supposed to work, it doesn't matter who is doing the study. Anybody can read the resulting paper and see whether the conclusions are supported by the data. That's what science is. Saying they don't trust science is a pretty heavy indictment that they have lost their way. What are they proposing to replace science with, vibes?
      - jibal 3mo ago
        You're portraying Republicans as fundamentally intellectually dishonest people. I'm not one to argue.
    - tbrownaw 3mo ago
      > I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Is "institutional racism" when institutions do treat individuals differently on the basis of race, or when they make sure not to? I'm used to seeing that term in context of advocating for explicit double standards.
    - 3mo ago
throw-the-towel 3mo ago
> If you're a Republican, why should you want to fund people who dump on your view of the world with your taxes? A society where funding depends on a person's political position doesn't sound free.
robocat 3mo ago
> SDoH = Social Determinants of Health
runako 3mo ago
Agree that asking for grants requires compromises. However, this administration has made clear that there are no compromises to be had for projects that seek forbidden knowledge. Climate, for example, is not a subject that is permitted at all. It's not about how one asks, it's that we do not want to know the output of the research.
- Windchaser 3mo ago
  Alternatively, they've already decided that everyone who works in the field is biased, or close enough, that it's better to just burn it all down. And, yes, this overlooks the times when conservative scientists like Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus and then come up with the exact same results, but... that's not considered important when they have so many other "examples" of "liberal science". I know that ultimately, there isn't really any space for 'conservative science' in climate. Either they do bad science, so it's not really 'science', or they do good science and come up with the same 'liberal' answers. But I don't think conservatives have figured this out yet; they're still convinced that good science will prove them right.
jibal 3mo ago
"If you're an irrational racist sociopath, why should you want to fund people who undermine your baseless claims?"

amanaplanacanal 3mo ago

The better question is: Why is it that when republicans hear the word "racism" they immediately think people are talking about them? Are they afraid of what research on racism will show?

rurp 3mo ago
No that's a more partisan one, and is exactly the sort of thing OP was arguing against. If you want broad based support for research funding you will necessarily need support from a lot of people you personally find distasteful. You can either try to appeal to people across the spectrum and keep bipartisan support, or label half the country racist and deal with the resulting backlash. As someone who hates the current administration and thinks it's doing untold harm to our future, I'm disappointed by how many people in the sciences chose option two.
- amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
  I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Because Republicans don't want it to be true? Is that the claim, or am I confused about what you are saying?
  - wins32767 3mo ago
    Part of the issue here is that the academy has lost the trust of Republicans. So even if there are results that institutional racism is a significant factor, if it's coming from someone who is "woke" in their views it'll just be dismissed. To them it feels like using their tax dollars to fund someone who is going to skew results so they have a club to beat them with. And a big part of the reason they've lost trust is that the academy doesn't acknowledge when it's being political (see "reality has a liberal bias" in this thread or your frame here, for that matter).
    - amanaplanacanal 3mo ago
      The way science is supposed to work, it doesn't matter who is doing the study. Anybody can read the resulting paper and see whether the conclusions are supported by the data. That's what science is. Saying they don't trust science is a pretty heavy indictment that they have lost their way. What are they proposing to replace science with, vibes?
    - jibal 3mo ago
      You're portraying Republicans as fundamentally intellectually dishonest people. I'm not one to argue.
  - tbrownaw 3mo ago
    > I don't understand. We shouldn't research whether institutional racism is causing problems? Is "institutional racism" when institutions do treat individuals differently on the basis of race, or when they make sure not to? I'm used to seeing that term in context of advocating for explicit double standards.
  - 3mo ago

throw-the-towel 3mo ago

> If you're a Republican, why should you want to fund people who dump on your view of the world with your taxes? A society where funding depends on a person's political position doesn't sound free.

robocat 3mo ago

> SDoH = Social Determinants of Health

runako 3mo ago

Agree that asking for grants requires compromises. However, this administration has made clear that there are no compromises to be had for projects that seek forbidden knowledge. Climate, for example, is not a subject that is permitted at all. It's not about how one asks, it's that we do not want to know the output of the research.

Windchaser 3mo ago
Alternatively, they've already decided that everyone who works in the field is biased, or close enough, that it's better to just burn it all down. And, yes, this overlooks the times when conservative scientists like Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus and then come up with the exact same results, but... that's not considered important when they have so many other "examples" of "liberal science". I know that ultimately, there isn't really any space for 'conservative science' in climate. Either they do bad science, so it's not really 'science', or they do good science and come up with the same 'liberal' answers. But I don't think conservatives have figured this out yet; they're still convinced that good science will prove them right.

jibal 3mo ago

"If you're an irrational racist sociopath, why should you want to fund people who undermine your baseless claims?"