Back

replied to petersuber's status

Update. "Staffers with Elon ’s [] entered the headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ()…today, inciting concerns of downsizing at the agency."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/doge-noaa-headquarters

What's the or interest here?

1. "…called for the agency to be 'broken up and downsized', claiming the agency is 'harmful to US prosperity' for its role in science."

2. Andrew Rosenberg, a former NOAA official, "noted it had been a longtime goal of corporations that rely on NOAA data to prevent the agency from making the data public, instead of giving it directly to private corporations that create products based on it, such as weather forecasting services."

PS: Rosenberg is right. During the GWBush admin, Senator (R-PA) repeatedly tried to take down NOAA's open weather data, to benefit AccuWeather, the for-profit weather forecaster …

replied to petersuber's status

Update. The isn't the only journal pushing back against the directive that staff scientists should retract pending publications that use Trump-banned words. (Earlier in this thread.)

Kudos to the _American Journal of Public Health_ () for pushing back as well.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/114076

From publisher Georges Benjamin: "We at the American Journal of Public Health have no interest in following the president's prohibitions on language. We will publish things under our guidelines, under our ethical principles." Benjamin acknowledged that the journal may now get fewer submissions from government scientists.

AJPH is published by the American Public Health Association ().

replied to petersuber's status

Update. "White House budget proposal could shatter the National Science Foundation"
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/02/white-house-budget-proposal-could-shatter-the-national-science-foundation/

" 'This kind of cut would kill American science and boost and other nations into global science leadership positions,' [said] Neal Lane, who led the in the 1990s during Bill Clinton's presidency."

PS: I've never liked arguments for funding or fostering science. Science is international. But the admin is putting us in a dilemma. Either we see deep cuts in US science funding. Or we use nationalist arguments to avert those cuts.

There are non-nationalist arguments to fund US science. For example, good science is usually expensive and those who do it well should be funded for the benefit of all. Unfortunately that argument is not likely to work on Trump admin officials. It's not US-specific and applies everywhere, even in China.

replied to petersuber's status

Update. "Trump officials exerting unprecedented control over CDC scientific journal"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-officials-influence-cdc-mmwr/

"Trump administration political appointees have taken steps in recent weeks to exert unprecedented influence over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's flagship medical research publication, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, multiple federal health officials tell CBS News. The interference included dictating what to cover and withholding studies on the growing bird flu outbreak."

PS: Just curious. How do Trump officials decide that covering bird flu is bad for their agenda?

replied to petersuber's status

Over at @deltathink, Dan Pollock and Ann Michael estimate the impact of executive actions on academic publishing, starting with the .
https://www.deltathink.com/news-views-special-edition-how-much-of-scholarly-publishing-is-affected-by-us-presidential-executive-orders

"The proportion of CDC-authored papers is tiny [0.1% of global output and 0.6% of US output], and so their suppression is unlikely to lead to a drop in publishing output. However, should the orders spread to other areas of health research, then the effects could be profound – especially for journals and publishers relying heavily on US-authored papers."

replied to petersuber's status

Update The admin has taken down the .

It was formerly at this URL.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf

You can still find it in the @internetarchive , as recently as Jan 18, 2025.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250118021041/https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf

We can't tell yet whether it was taken down because Trump officials didn't like the policies it laid out, didn't like its use of language — or both.

h/t https://fediscience.org/@jnonfiction@social.coop