Back

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

Update. I still don't know the full story behind the takedown of the . But here's a clue. The Dept of Defense () continued rolling its memo-based policy *after* Trump took office and *after* the memo was taken down.
https://fediscience.org/@petersuber/113964410103345053

That's a sign that agencies have not been told to stop rolling out their memo-based policy upgrades. But of course that may change.

Also note that memo is preserved in the , for now, not just in the Wayback Machine.
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf

(Yes, I'm aware that Trump fired Colleen Shogan, the Biden-era National Archivist.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/us/politics/trump-fires-the-nations-archivist-in-latest-round-of-personnel-purge.html

replied to petersuber's status

Update. "In the initial days of the administration, officials scoured federal websites for any mention of what they deemed keywords — terms as generic as “diverse” and “historically” and even “women.” They soon identified reams of some of the country’s most valuable public health data containing some of the targeted words, including language about LGBTQ+ people, and quickly took down much of it — from surveys on obesity and suicide rates to real-time reports on immediate infectious disease threats like bird flu."
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/399319/trump-cdc-health-data-removed-obesity-suicide

replied to petersuber's status

Update. "The White House has designated Mr. ’s office, United States Service, as an entity insulated from public records requests."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/trump-musk-doge-foia-public-records.html

In Nov 2024 before Musk joined the government, he wrote on X / Twitter: "There should be no need for FOIA requests. All government data should be default public for maximum transparency."
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1853079605596340235

replied to petersuber's status

Update. "Court Orders , to Restore Scrubbed Webpages, Data"
https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/washington-watch/114177

"A federal judge on Tuesday ordered government agencies to restore public access to health-related webpages and datasets that they removed to comply with an executive order by President …The scrubbed material includes reports on HIV prevention, a CDC webpage for providing clinicians with guidance on reproductive healthcare, and an FDA study on 'sex differences in the clinical evaluation of medical products.'"

replied to petersuber's status

Update. From @hildabast: "What if We Can’t Rely on PubMed?"
https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2025/02/14/what-if-we-cant-rely-on-pubmed/

" is incredibly reliable…That said, between the risks of an exodus of key personnel, understaffing, or goodness-knows-what vandalism when a goon squad arrives at NIH, it’s not paranoid any more to think ahead to the once-unthinkable. What would PubMed enshittification look like? Could PubMed go down more often, and for longer? Might services no longer be free? How else could the and of its services be degraded?"

replied to petersuber's status

Update. From , "I Used to Run the . Here’s What Worries Me."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/opinion/trump-public-health-funding-nih.html

"I’ve spent over five decades as a scientist in academia and the federal government, including as director of the NIH. Never before have I seen my profession so politicized as it is now under the administration…For baffling reasons, the executive branch is now waging war on America’s scientific enterprise. This assault includes nominating leaders hostile to science and unqualified for their roles; issuing a barrage of executive orders that disrupt research by restricting meetings, publications, travel and grant making; censoring ideas and even certain words from scientific discourse; and trying to withhold billions of dollars from universities and other research institutions that help pay the costs of research."

PS: In addition to being a former NIH director, Varmus is a Nobel laureate (1989 Medicine) and co-founder of @ …