The case for overhauling American science

This is the full proposal: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Scienc...It's pretty thoughtful about diagnosing the problems of the current system, but I don't know about the solutions. Disbursing money to researchers directly (or via industry) seems captive to the same incentives as disbursing money via universities.

Achieve link (https://archive.is/20260813145232/https://www.economist.com/...)Maybe I read it wrong but it seems the case being made is to overhaul the current NSF...with a different NSF? Like I'm failing to see what specifically the current government is doing to hamper AI progress that there should be a "focus on harnessing AI and out-competing China", and what harnessing AI actually means. reply: It means funneling public funds to AI and AI-adjacent companies that grease the wheels enough with the administration. It's like everything else: the administration decides it can control funds however it wants, regardless of what was legislated, and leverages those funds for quid pro quo transactions.Say what you will about how to improve academics and scientific research, but the current administration's modus operandi is not the way.

It's a surprisingly short article https://archive.ph/DhZkR

> The focus should be on harnessing AI and out-competing ChinaLol. Braindead take. First of all, who cares if we invent next-big-technology before china? We’ll get them to make it for us and then they’ll be better at it than us because they make it and we don’t.> writes Michael Kratsios, the White House science chiefAh, yes. That makes the braindeadness of the take make sense. This is just more anti-science bullshit from a gov that hates science. Once you get past the talk, it’ll boil down to “we should only give NSF funding to companies that kick back enough cash to the trump 2028 campaign fund”

The term 'overhauling' is typically used as a weapon in framing battles. It is usually employed by an emerging faction, or a group dissatisfied with the existing establishment, to frame their opponents as evil. The logic is truly absurd.They argue that investments have surged while results have diminished. This is a given. Just like a gold mine, gold is easily extracted at first, but the deeper you dig, the more expensive extraction becomes.The article dismisses things like "spending half their time on paperwork" as mere bureaucracy, but these are necessary procedures to ensure the transparent execution of public funds. Shifting power and capital from universities to private AI companies effectively dismantles this public oversight.Transitioning to a "new initiative" is simply a move to siphon academic power and prestige toward their own agenda. In reality, the exodus of scientists to the private AI industry leaves immense room for scientific neutrality to be compromised. Of course, it is undeniable that inefficiencies and flawed practices do exist in certain areas of academia. Furthermore, once researchers enter the corporate world, they are bound by NDAs....

You can't overhaul American science without overhauling the scam that is university. They build, work out of and live in literal castles. Yet the socialists seem to have no problem with this, because the universities fund their NGOs. reply: > live in literal castles.lol. For example?