It is pretty much clear that the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it. There is no reason apart from that.
People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that.
While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, there is no data or research (duh!) showing the impact of reduced public research.
From what we have seen so far this will make things worse - because for one private research is going to biased. It happens today but public research can counter that. Later there will be no defense. Like MAHA report making up BS sources using AI to push its agenda.
The irony in all of this is - the man pushing ivermectin during a pandemic - one of the biggest replication issue if not the big one - is telling others how to do research and people are defending him.
> .. the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it ...
The US spent ~1 trillion dollars on science in 2024, 2025 will be maybe 10% less.
The EU spent ~460 billion dollars on science in 2024 ... and 2025 will be 10 to 20% less.
So the problem I have here is simple. I mostly agree with you. But European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are taking back grants faster than Trump. Per-capita or per-GDP-dollar they spent 3 to 4 times less than the US on science. In absolute terms, they spent less than half the US spent.
EU politicians (and diplomats) are doing worse than Trump on this issue, not better.
This is the part that's always forgotten. Everyone's gleefully saying that this Trump White House is going to finally, after decades, reverse the EU to US brain drain!
Then you look at the facts ... and no, it's not. In fact it may accelerate under Trump. What the EU is doing to science funding is worse than what Trump is doing.
I mean, I get it. Trump is worse than Biden. Or, to put it a different way: the US is so far ahead of the EU in science that the major idiotic stumble Trump is turning out to be ... just doesn't matter. But yeah, bring back Biden!
If getting a science grant for X is 5 years of effort in the EU, it's about 2 years of effort in the US. Sure, it used to be 1.8 years and that sucks. But there is still a very large difference and obviously the expected outcome here, if we're being honest, is that the US ... will easily remain far ahead in science to the EU.
A long whataboutism and defending points which were never made.
"What about EU? European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are taking back grants faster than Trump." where have we seen this? Oh yes, the RW who talk about EU "offloading" science to US.
I understand this makes for good TV content where the focus is to shift goalposts to new topic.
I didn't make the points about brain drain or whether US will remain ahead. I only pointed out is that the real reason WH is doing this and those on the right gleefully clapping along. People defend this in bad faith. There is no way to know if this is going to be net positive. Numbers look fine on paper but the cost of say private biased research unchallenged by neutral public research might erase the gain. I am fine if I am proven wrong in 4 years and things remain unchanged.
But yeah, Biden something something and Trump something something.
It worked out well for Europe because the country that took over its position of leadership position post-WW2 (USA) was aligned with it in all ways (politically, culturally, scientifically, economically), and so (western) European countries could still enjoy all the benefits. It will not be the case this time around, because the next generation of innovation and leadership is going to come from China.
I think that is the most likely outcome. However, if the decline starts occurring too rapidly, I do think violent far-right (and perhaps far-left) paramilitary action could become a major problem, like in 1920s/1930s Germany. Tons of time spent lurking in far-right extremist communities out of morbid curiosity, and the spread of far-right ethnosupremacist sentiment on basically every social media platform, has me concerned.
Yes, nearly all of them absolutely are. (I have talked to many of them and they really truly are.) That fact does genuinely assuage my concerns. Still, I do wonder if a future charismatic far-right politician who does not come across as a loser could do far better than previous generations ever could have predicted. The worst possible person at the worst possible time.
> England “gave up” scientific and technological leadership during the 20th century. (That’s a tongue-in-cheek take on it, don’t read too much into it.)
Was forced to give up, due to the economic devastation of WWII, might be more accurate (though of course there were other factors too).
Quite something to imagine 60 years from now history books (or thought-o-grams) may be written on Gamergate and a microblogging application and a reality TV host ushering in the chain of events that upended the biggest global power.
> I am an American and didn’t vote for this bullsh*t.
Isn't the whole principle about democracy and freedom that you all stick together no matter what political party/parties is in power? If you're just throwing your hands up in the air because your party isn't the one in control, what kind of democracy is that? The whole point is working together with opponents for common goals.
Otherwise, may I interest you in an insurrection? Pretty hot and trendy these times.
Is that hyperbole or do you have actual violent threats against you at this very moment? I'm not the US, so can't really tell what's going on on the ground, but compared to other situations (namely middle-east some years ago) where people are being told "Do this or you'll end up in that grave over there", is this what is happening in the US today?
So interesting how you omit democratic representative Hortman and democratic senator Hoffman from your list, and also fail to mention that all shooters (except the last one -- affiliation unknown) were right wing.
To be fair, it was pretty much the entire western world fucking around before. Brexit was the first shock but I don't think the world learned many lessons from that. However a lot of western nations are taking the US as a cautionary tale and will learn from US mistakes. So 2nd place might be lucky at this point (assuming we're comparing large trading blocs rather than just countries).
I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony. Imagine if Al Gore had won 2000 - America at the helm while growing increasingly wary of violent foreign interventions seems like the least bad path for Earth. (I am not sure if such a path still remains.)
China ultra-liberalizing and becoming a democracy and then the hegemon could be an okay path but I am not too optimistic about the prospects of those first parts.
> I think it's very likely counterfactually better than USSR (now Russian) or Chinese hegemony.
Why is it either or the other? Just because the US happens to turn inwards and stop acting like the world police, doesn't mean that other countries suddenly start dreaming of world domination. China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
> China and Russian both have plenty of problems in their home fronts and surrounding areas.
Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small.
They solve such problems by doing the one thing they have always done: expanding. Successful conquest temporarily mitigates internal problems, injustices and inefficiencies.
> Do you know how Russia got so large? They started out small.
Do you know how literally any country got the size it is today? They started out small. Some of them are still small today, but they might be larger tomorrow. Some of them will be smaller tomorrow. This is how the world has function and continues to function. Not sure how this could be surprising to anyone out there, even less how you think someone wouldn't understand this very basic fact about countries.
If you are trying to make a counterpoint, try again, hopefully with an actual argument.
And maybe, maybe, you take into account that the size of Russia and its expansionism are on a whole other level and still ongoing, and that other countries are not like that at all, not even remotely.
How is that different from how US acted after 1776? Or China during Qin dynasty?
Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard.
Did any country start out large? Since your main point seems to have been that Russia started out small, in contrast to some other country you're trying to reference that apparently started out large, but I'm not sure which one you're trying to reference here.
> Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard
Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers.
Russia isn't special. It was–like every other ordinary country–previously restrained. Dissolving the rules that restrained it also dissolves the rules that restrained every other current and aspiring global or regional power.
> Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers.
So because someone doesn't want the US as a world police, means they want some other country as world police? Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police?
I never understood the lack of nuance in American politics and in lots of conversations with Americans. Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B, no matter how much you see them as direct antonyms or whatever, what's up with trying to argue in this way? What conversation and discussions are improved by this sort of behavior? What is your goal with doing that, some sort of gotcha?
> Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police?
Yes. This is what happens. Which means various powers fight to establish spheres of influence, regionally and globally.
> Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B
No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means–ceteris paribus–incentivizing realpolitik.
(It doesn't mean the only options are America as world cop or anarchy. But rejecting the former without anything to fall back on is embracing the latter.)
> What is your goal with doing that, some sort of gotcha?
Describing reality around power vacuums. Releasing Pax Americana creates a power vacuum everywhere at the same time. (It also releases America from its rules-based obligations, though these pretty much became guidelines after each of the Iraq War, annexation of Crimea and China being China in Tibet and the South China Sea.)
> No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means–ceteris paribus–incentivizing realpolitik.
Yeah, I think this is the core of our disagreement. Maybe my view of the world isn't US-centric enough, but I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax Americana played out. But I do know this is a really common view in the US, so I won't really attempt to convince you otherwise, I think it's at this point we just agree to disagree.
> I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax Americana played out
They don’t. The Pax is expensive to maintain. They want their spheres of influence. Same as America’s elites. Same as India’s, Iran’s, Israel’s, Turkey’s, et cetera.
There is no indication Russia or China want to be world cops. But they—and many others, including America—do want to dominate their neighbours in ways that are restricted by the rules-based international order.
> I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing
Unless you’re voting in a small handful of European countries, you probably aren’t causing or restraining much in this theatre. (I’m in a single-party state in America. I’m not influencing this through my vote either.)
It seems likely that at least for a few more centuries, humanity and Earth are going to play the typical geopolitical games they've played during the past centuries.
China and Russia are consistently led by ruthless people who like power. Plus, even if China does only just conquer Taiwan and then leaves everyone else alone as the hegemon, there's still the matter of them oppressing ~20% of the humans on the planet (their own people). Even if it's the sort of oppression that you don't necessarily ever notice so long as you always stay in line.
China is the alternative. How many countries has China waged war against, toppled democratic governments, established puppet março-states and invaded since 1949?
There are literally thousands of years of sino-korean wars, so its hard to pin that blame on a specific government. Tibet is a more straightforward case of imperial expansionism from China, although it is also a centuries-old one, dating from Qing dynasty (1700s). The border skirmishes with India stem from mutual dissatisfaction with old British imperial border lines, which both governments disagree with.
Now compare that with the USA list. China's list is, to say the least, much more lightweight, straightforward and understandable. I'd go with that list any day, and most of the world would too.
It could be the case that they become the hegemon and don't ever conquer anyone besides Taiwan and it still sucks due to how they treat ~20% of the Earth's population (their own citizens).
A liberal, democratic China becoming the hegemon is very possibly better than the status quo (especially under Trump and with the surge of far-right mainstreaming in the US), but China as it is now cannot be trusted to be a good steward of a hypothetical Pax Sinica, just as Trumpist America cannot be trusted.
The greatest timeline for Europe in its history? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Latin America overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for Oceania overall? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for India? Post WW2 to now.
The greatest timeline for the rest of Asia overall? Post WW2 to now.
Coming up on 80 years. Here's a short list, please tell me which prior ~80 year period in history these nations had it better overall for their people.
Britain, Ireland, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria. Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan. Australia, New Zealand, Canada. China, Japan, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand. Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain.
Just most of the world population in that little list.
Even Russia - the people of Russia have far higher standards of living at the median today than they have at any other point in their history. It's not even remotely close.
'But but but the world isn't perfect.' No kidding.
You have a gigantic confounder of general progress, much of it technological.
Just recently I made a post here in some thread to point out that even wein backwards East Germany made huge gains - my grandfather, born early 20th century, lived much, much better even by the end of the GDR compared to when he was born in the Weimar Republic.
Especially food became a non-issue in the modern world, productivity increases were gigantic. The Haber-Bosch process, very important at the start of that development, was not a US invention, nor contingent on anything US related.
It would be hard to disentangle US influence, but one can assume even if the US had not become so dominant, much of those developments would still have taken place, lifting up much of the entire world.
Right, because counterfactuals aren’t provable. It doesn’t seem to stop people from confidently stating that American hegemony was worse than the alternatives.
We know it worked well, that the entire world seems to be better off now than before ww2.
We know that west Germany did far better than east Germany. We know Japan did far better than the Asian states under the USSR’s influence. We know that things went pretty damned well overall for the whole NATOsphere after ww2.
We know WW3 didn’t happen.
We don’t know how it would have gone if it were another country “in charge” or how it would have gone if nobody was “in charge” to the degree the US was.
So just saying “Pax Americana was a pox on the world” is such an utterly asinine statement I don’t even know how to begin to address it, other than to file it under “trolls gonna troll.”
Correlation is not causation. At the same time, the industrial and technological revolutions happened, which are the main drivers of the "greatest timeline".
It's popular to hate the US but I'd like to know what country you think would be better at the role of global hegemon. What country would you suggest would do a better job? Be specific.
> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent
Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution.
Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII.
It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to assert their spheres of influence.
I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Revoking Pax Americana (and the rules-based international order it was built on, aspirational as it may have often been) just means our elites can go back to 19th-century rules.
> I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might?
Two years ago, I would have agreed.
Today? Given what Trump is doing? Kicking out military personal for being trans, his poor choice for (not only but in this topic specifically) Defence Secretary, his demand to redesign stealth warships because he won't accept the un-"aesthetic" look is driven by functional requirements, demanding a return of battleships this time with a railgun (to go with the lasers)?
I think there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military.
Well, I say "risk": I'm European, so for me it's a good thing if the person who is trying to break up my home is more interested in flashy demos than functional weapons.
> there's a very real risk of the USA military rapidly following the same path as post-soviet Russian military
Totally agree. That said, Russia's military is a joke. It's still more than capable of making messes. Messes which were once constrained by the rules-based international order.
> where small groups of well armed people can compete with state on a more equal footing
Yes. This is happening in Sudan, the DRC, Burma, Yemen, Nicaragua, et cetera. It entertains some people from afar, but is generally a miserable state of affairs for the people on the ground.
The greatest era of prosperity expansion and peace in world history courtesy of pax Americana. The best decades - measurably - for humanity overall have taken place since the US assumed that role post WW2.
Depends on where you were during those decades. If you're in one of the unlucky countries that didn't do what the US wanted you likely suffered enormously.
Part of it is ideas and ideals. America represents ideas of liberty, liberalism, democracy, and individualism. The USSR/Russia and China represent the exact opposite.
America has failed to live up to those ideals (slavery, plunder, toppling democratically elected leaders to install military dictatorships, unnecessary wars with mass civilian casualties) on multiple occasions, but if you at least look at things on paper, America is selling a better product. And with the (now gutted) aid we provided to the world, and the economic boons of American consumer demand helping to speed up industrialization of poorer countries, benefits weren't just lofty principles.
One nice thing about American ideals is that, domestically, Americans who respect them can fight for them and fight for their preservation and expansion. There exists a noble thing to fight for which can in fact be fought for, and that thing encompasses the principle of not ever permitting people in other countries to suffer so that the United States may gain. Good luck doing any of that in Russia or China in 2025, and likely also in 2050.
“ Part of it is ideas and ideals. America represents ideas of liberty, liberalism, democracy, and individualism. The USSR/Russia and China represent the exact opposite.”
This is just pure John Birch society propaganda and at no point has the US actually ever attempted in any real way to realize this
This just seems pretty wrong. Obviously there were also lots of bad things the Americans did, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t attempting to realize those ideals. The US was quite influential in ending colonialism by Britain and France across much of the world after WWII for example. The US also helped to set up west Germany and Japan as liberal democracies after the war (they certainly weren’t before or during it, and Britain and France were not so fond of helping Germany recover), as well as helping German reunification (again opposed by France and Britain) and post-Soviet states with their recovery (sure, in all these cases the thing that was good for realizing these values was also good in the long run for the US (especially its Cold War political goals) and the affected countries but I don’t think that’s a very good argument that the US doesn’t care about these values).
I think there’s a lot of nuance here, and you have not expressed nuanced or detailed opinions in this thread, so I’m a bit curious about what your actual claims are, but I’m also not particularly interested in debating them.
> The US was quite influential in ending colonialism by Britain and France across much of the world after WWII for example.
The colonized people were a lot more influential there, though the US did exert some force in that direction (as well as plenty in the other direction) depending on its perception of the value of the particular colonial arrangement on its own geopolitical interests.
America has often stomped on the ideas it claims to fight for but to say it has never attempted to realize it is very silly and itself just reflexive anti-America propaganda. Look at FDR's words and actions during and after WWII, look at Eisenhower, look at Carter, look at JFK, imagine a future trajectory where Al Gore won that election.
America has sometimes done the exact opposite of helping other countries become healthy democracies - but they also very obviously have sometimes in fact helped other countries become healthy democracies. America's staunch pro-liberty pro-democracy stance is a big part of why the immediate aftermath of WWII led to Europe becoming a mostly democratic, stable quasi-union.
I am saying it's a gray area but that at least on paper America says nice words. You're just saying it's all bad.
Anything the US does that is beneficial is 1. Incidental to th goal 2. Will eventually benefit them US interest if only because it’s used as further propaganda
It's not just science, all sorts of conferences and other group gatherings are actively avoiding meeting in the US to avoid difficulties for international travelers.
The problem is that the current government's idea of being a piece of shit politically includes any sort of dissent, disagreement, or mocking of the administration (see the people who have gotten in trouble for JD Vance memes)
But how does a person know if they are a piece of shit, according to CBP, or not? Might just skip the trip altogether and have less things to worry about.
Not true. Border agents were always tinpot dictators, but they're awful these days.
I personally know white collar professionals who were turned back at the border for having a B1 visa instead of a TN visa for temporary work, while another person in their group was let through with no problem. They've been using the same kind of visa for a decade before this. And they were white dudes from Canada.
My Mexican friends said they're not stepping foot in the US for the foreseeable future, and I don't blame them. They have families and can't risk being disappeared and potentially killed because of some idiot border agent.
I too, enjoy having my DNA samples taken and my phones contents downloaded as an agent scrolls through 5 years of my social media history for wrongthink against Doritos Flamin' Führor
You its honestly really disappointing, the thinned skinned nature of HN is really shocking never new about it until started using the active view instead of the standard view. This specific critism isn't even really that political. They are pointing out the economic consequences of poor policy. I think its tricky to navigate though because I'd prefer not everything become politcal
Yes, I really don't understand why we cannot discuss the current reality like, well, hackers would. Like developers do when discussing design patterns or types of databases. Flagging content that should interest hackers ... like the perceived scientific reputation of the US ... seems overprotective and fussy to me.
"Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation."
For someone in the top position of EU's research leadership, she sure does seem to suck at explaining and arguing her statements, which should be the no. 1 skill of academics in research.
If you don't think a foreign diplomat's comments about a counterparty nation are potentially biased, we don't have enough common ground to warrant further discussion.
I always feel weird reading statements from the EU regarding this relationship. There's always talk of the U.S abandoning it's position, guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation. Cut off the U.S from the research? Retaliatory tariffs? Why is the U.S leaving NATO a concern for the EU, but not a concern for the U.S? The fact that these are not the top talking points makes me think the U.S isn't entirely wrong in their approach.
It's the classic breakup story, one party is just done and want to cut contact, but the other party is still hopeful and wants to find a way to restore the relationship.
The EU is not independent minded in the same way that China and Russia are. That's the problem with them. Their leaders don't want to act independently from the US, because the European wealthy and politically connected classes consider themselves transatlantic, and they want to keep enjoying close ties to the US, even as the US pulls away.
Personally, as someone that has heard non-stop about how horrible the US is from Europeans ever since I was on the internet, I don't give statements from EU officials much weight. It isn't anything new.
I have family that has migrated _from_ Europe to the US, they still seem to hold this attitude that they know what is best for the US. They come live here for a higher quality of life and income, then go vacation in Europe like kings, talking about how much cheaper things are, without an ounce of irony. Not sure how they do it.
You have to be a special kind of ignorant to try and say it’s a higher quality of life with a straight face. On essentially zero of any of the metrics which are specifically designed to measure exactly this does the US come out on top. Thats just a jingoistic nonsense you heard somewhere and decided to repeat it like it was a fact.
> guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation.
The narratives are harmful. What would retaliation bring? The EU doesn't fancy a winner-takes-all mindset. There is no joy if the US goes down as some sort of backwards kleptocracy. There is no joy if the US populace slide back into the gilded age. It doesn't make the EU better. On the contrary. It will be a loss for both sides. Hence, why they speak out (a little).
Abandoning the rules based order, science, equality, personal rights; it all will have devastating effects. For Americans, for everyone.
The US position in the NATO is an arrangement like the Americans wanted for decades, it enabled the US to profit greatly from it, and Europa was happy to have the US as a counter balance. Now, if the US wants to change the arrangement, that is of course possible. But we have signed contracts, blackmail and extortion shouldn't have a place. Can't share sources, but under this administration several powerful but corrupt people in the army even tried to extort European partners already. It is on track to become Russified in that sense, nothing to be gleeful over.
The point isn't to crush the U.S in retaliation, it's to show why maintaining a relationship is mutually beneficial. It's troubling that the EU can't produce any concrete reasons why that's the case.
There is a lot to say about these things, but this forum is a hard place to lay them down. I have to keep it short.
The problem is that the "US" is not seated at the table, just a bunch of kleptocrats and some zealots. The mutual benefits are real for the US, as in the populace, but the problem is that if the string-pulling group has to choose between their own interest or the US interest, they pick the first option.
I can absolutely understand you will reject the following instinctively, but let me tell you that for some fractions in the current movement, the idea of "burning" it all down is something they don't see as a bad thing. Turning the clock back in time, back to the gilded age, doing away with modernity, equal rights, secularism and non-whites--they dream about it. It is something horribly detrimental for the 99.9999%, sure, but they shouldn't have a say anyway.
And instinctively, a EU that "becomes a shining light on the hill" in absence of the USA, is a threat to the USA. The recently released foreign policy isn't shy about it. The same dynamic as Putin has with a thriving open democracy next to its border. Can't exist, dangerous, needs to be dismantled.
The trouble isn't EU <-> US. It is the US as the representation of the American People does not exist anymore. However flawed it might have been in the past, this is something else entirely. There is not even a notion of normalcy anymore. As such, the EU can't deal with the American People anymore via the regular diplomatic channels to reach a common ground for win-wins. So these very modest public comments from officials you will read now and then in the press are nothing less than an alarm to the American people itself. If you ask me, I don't think this message will successfully cross the information space in the US, but what options do they have? If you look at HN, anything that might be interpreted as a criticism quickly becomes an identitarian battle. Which, given the binary political system in the USA and the general human trait of tribalism is quite understandable, but nonetheless self-defeating and unfortunate for both sides.
The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship. If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.
> 1. The overwhelming conversation is about how this relationship isn't worth it.
> 2. Even among liberal Americans it's about how the U.S benefits immensely from the relationship.
I have to leave in a minute, but maybe you can explain what you mean? 1 and 2 are in conflict, no?
> If you can't address that concern, then Americans will assume you ceded it.
Do you mean that when the US' public can't hear from the US partners that this is a mutual beneficial relation, the public will assume that these partners thereby admit that this relation was indeed not beneficial for the US public? (Even that the EU is a threat to be dismantled, as foreign policy now calls it)?
Assuming you did mean it somewhat like that, I would say:
a. the American information space is warped and segmented. Corporate ownership, the abolishment of fairness doctrine, information deserts, algorithmic control, conconditioning by corporate narratives (as old as the US oligarchy)--it is all highly dysfunctional. No small feat to get anything sensible past these filters.
b. In line with a, even the Democrats are locked out of this information space. Some titles read by the liberals might be marketed as such, but they are controlling the narratives as much as possible, with language, below-fold, above-fold, false balance via "op-eds" and editors stepping in to relegate possibly impactful stories to books, so no one reads them. Sure, they won't go fox because you can't do that with this readership. For reference, look back at the New York Times: Trump and Project 2025 had given enough signals of what was about to come, but the newspaper frantically tried to balance it with endless stories of Biden's age.
c. As aside, it is real bad, but subtly bad. If one can only read English, I would recommend The Guardian to get real journalism.
d. To wrap it up, Americans are not reachable anymore. When dem voters and rep voters cannot talk with each other, their information space is warped. Do not expect the EU to even get anything in this mess through the gatekeepers. Even the Americans-in-the-know can't.
Yes your interpretation is correct, and I think it answers your first question.
The idea that Americans are unreachable is false. Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount. All of America's most influential cities lean liberal. The most influential right wing media is social media, and left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there. The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
> Republicans hold on to their power by only a slim amount.
Agreed. But that is only counting the Republican seats. Historically, Dems had great trouble to do reforms, even if they wanted to and got enough seats. Multiple reasons. 1) Internal opposition. Dems are a big tent party, the Bernie side isn't that big. 2) You have to battle with the oligarchy. The Dems had to fight a war to get something basic like an independent central bank. 3) Historically, the Reps excel in slick and expensive marketing campaigns. 4) You can reach some parts of the public with information, but the odds are low that this message will be allowed to gain critical mass.
> left wing sources still have plenty of room to work there
Sure, but was the reversal of anti-monopolist anti financial fraud legislature made undone in the past decades? The narratives that shaped the public's opinion do make the universe smaller, often in such a way that writers don't even notice, as it their lived universe too. Also, why can't the voices in the US that do sound the alarm get enough traction? The intelligence and military industry have done great damage since Bush. The irony is that the Reps, in the most shameless way started isolationist narratives, criticizing the various wars, as capital shifted from military industry to surveillance and big tech industry. Now that criticism was due, but the narratives have been established. Any writer has to deal with the power of those widespread narratives. Yes, illegal wars, private militaries¹ and so forth are bad. No, isolationism and might-makes-right is bad too. But that takes deconstructing the dominant narratives.
> The EU needs to make a strong case for itself instead of assuming what it's owned.
I can't say you are wrong, but I could understand if they calculate that this isn't worth the risks. You might be someone that would read a letter from some European official with willingness to consider its message, but I think most people would interpret it as some variant of "hey American, let me as some European bureaucrat try to blindside you with a factual looking message so that the europoors can continue siphoning of from you". Also, this might open the door for the Reps to go even further with propping up neo-nazi or far-right parties in Europe, because you can bet the press will present this as a "both sides do".
Secondly, the US populace will get hit harder than Europe. That begs the question why the US own voices shouldn't be the first. And if they fail, how would the EU do that better?
Long story short, you might be right that the EU should be more proactive, maybe. Their weak voice might be partly attributed to their limited geopolitical agenda. But, even if their voice could and should be louder, I have big doubts it would make a difference.
It sounds more like a parroting of a popular sentiment as a conclusion, rather than providing a data-based assessment. What are the numbers? What's the real impact? How much lead does USA have over it's nearest competition?
> With an annual budget of more than $47 billion, NIH is the largest single public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world. In fiscal year 2023, NIH funding generated an estimated $92.89 billion in economic activity.
It's totally valid to say we don't have the money to pay for this stuff, but to frame this as "others not doing enough" is hilariously juvenile. We do this because it's good for our economy, our people, and our global industrial dominance. Not charity, lol.
That's the thing about investing in scientific research, especially toward the basic science end of the spectrum - the real benefit is seen years down the line after technology transfer to public-private partnerships and private industry. It can take many years to decades to see the long-term benefit, which is why it needs government backing. It's not sustainable for most players in the private sector to invest research that is high risk (with respect to applicability), long term, or both. This also makes it easy to cast doubt on the value of research being done now or recently - we don't have a ton of concrete results to show for it yet. The best numbers to look at would probably be emigration / immigration of PhDs, papers published in top-tier journals and the universities associated with them, and where conferences are being held.
I suspect that's a little tricky to quantify, so we're left with anecdotal observations. I would be surprised if anyone looking around objectively could say feel the U.S. was gaining any ground.
I recently read "Chip War" and it talked about an era (around the 80s and 90s) were american dominance on electronics (and economy) seemed in deep decline.
Japan was the next big thing.
But the collective efforts of some government agencies, academia and the private sector helped reverse the trend.
American dominance is sure not a given but with an almost century of inertia, all hope is not lost (especially compared to the alternative).
I get it. But what I'm saying is that the impact of a single misguided administration, while can be very devastating, is not enough to write off american super power status in research.
With appropriate planning and funding, the next administration can definitely reverse the trend.
What is US losing, relative to Europe/other countries?
I can't really think of many notable things to come out of Europe as of late... besides maybe covid vaccines but its hard to really say that when 90% of the wikipedia page for the "creators" is about research and contributions that they did (and could really only do) in the US.
You allude to it yourself in your example. People, from all over the world, were doing research in the US, because that’s the only place they could really do it. Now that this option is disappearing, the system will have to adjust and find another place. When that happens, US loses. Until it does, we all do.
People have been claiming "this is the end" of the US, for some reason or another, ever since I've been on the internet (since 2005).
This same sentiment was going around in 2016 when Trump was doing those ridiculous "bans" on immigration. Since then I would argue the US has only increased its influence and power over Europe. Europe needs help with the war and the US has already given immeasurable resources. Europe has almost no skin in the game when it comes to AI. Maybe that's a bubble but the point still stands.
Ofc I don't agree with what the current president is doing, but the idea that businesses and research will flock to Europe is amusing. They've certainly introduced enough barriers to ensure that won't happen.
The US might remain a leader country in science and other fields for many more years. The problem is that fewer persons will participate at this (due to less research positions, company lay offs, replacing AI, tariffs and other similar reasons). And this is bad for the people more than the country.
Countries shouldn't have outsourced all research and development to the US, hope they all notice this wasn't a good plan and that they all need to get back to it right now.
It’s difficult to compete economically. If the US has welcoming immigration policies for scientists and will pay 10x what your country can afford then you’re going to end up with a brain drain.
Recent changes in the US have changed that calculus but you can’t create an entire industry in the blink of an eye (and, of course, those changes can be reversed at any point)
Agreed with this sentiment. The average American doesn't care about any of this. Why would they? You have someone working 40+ hours a week to just barely be able to afford a dumpy apartment, with no real prospects or signs of escape - tell them that the US may no longer be paying top dollar to import the smartest people around the globe and see what they care.
In order for all of this to work cleanly, you need the everyman taken care of and actually willing to participate and have hope for the future. Until then you'll just get a slew of likely underhanded populists, because they at least pretended to care.
That's why you need smart people who care planning things. Miss out on either of those and you're going to fail. And right how we have people "planning" things who are neither smart nor caring.
> The average American doesn't care about any of this. Why would they?
Because scientific industries form a part of the US economy and hire a great many average Americans! And when you employ a good number of people there are a bunch of connected industries you spend money with, who in turn employ a lot of average Americans.
It is a rationale, but ironically a very socialist one, which I believe would be anathema to the people actually making the decisions and the people who voted for them too.
I think you need to show the working a little on a statement like that. Some immediate questions that come to mind:
- how many US citizens do these labs hire for every immigrant scientist they employ? There are support roles at all levels, all the way down to custodian. What jobs are lost when these grants are denied? A lot of this work will (hopefully!) continue, just in other counties. Now those countries get to employ their citizens instead.
- are the youth unemployed compared to previous levels? Are these unemployed youths able to do the jobs the immigrants do?
The US doesn’t take in skilled immigrants as a favor to the rest of the world or something. Other countries educate their citizens to a high level then the US poaches them and has them contribute to growing the US economy. It’s the story of countless Silicon Valley startups so it’s especially surprising to see this sentiment on HN!
Countries don’t outsource any research to the US. US funding lured many scientists to the US but this has never been seen as a positive thing outside the US. In Canada we call it brain drain. Now we’re capitalizing and the US science failing to strengthen our science sector.
Long term science is not at risk. Science doesn’t need the US. This is, however, a big problem for the US.
Don't worry, countries didn't do that. Academia is quite strong outside of the US. Still a loss of course!
When we talk about innovation, hn has a narrow focus on the well-known monopolies. That is understandable, because they are well-known brands, not some obscure innovative Swiss company in a critical supply chain. Reality is more complex than we discuss about, fortunately enough.
But the focus on the winner-takes-all is also a bit unhealthy, because monopolies are the anti-thesis of a free market. A free market needs rules to keep it free and fair. I know, that conflicts with the sponsored narratives--how else can you get people to justify gatekeeper siphoning everyone of in their walled garden?
It wasn’t exactly those countries choice, but since the US seems hell bent on sabotaging itself one can only hope the rest of the western world picks up this slack.
"In a parting shot before her retirement, the European Commission’s top science diplomat has castigated the US for destroying its reputation as a global scientific leader.
...
Speaking at the European Science Diplomacy Conference in Copenhagen, she did not elaborate on exactly how the US was wrecking its reputation.
...
The next programme, which starts in 2028, will also be more focused on European defence technology and industrial strength, raising questions over how welcome non-European partners will be, particularly in sensitive projects."
I am inclined to agree with her conclusion. But this is a political statement by a European diplomat selling her programme and asking for funds.
We can find better sources for documenting what’s happening. There is even nascent progress in measuring the harm.
> the US government has cut scientific grants to academics working on diversity-related topics, halted biomedical grants to international partners, and demanded universities shut down academic units that “belittle” conservative ideas, or risk losing federal funding.
> These efforts have in some cases been overturned by courts or faced opposition from universities. And huge proposed cuts in federal research funding may be blunted by Congress. But still, the reputational damage has led Europe to attempt a poaching spree of disillusioned US academics.
Sure. But the editorialized titled makes it sound like we have evidence of the damage. The article doesn’t provide that, it’s citing a political speech.
These things tends to do decades of harm in science, the USA isn't the first to do stupid things to its academia, even if the next administration tries to repair. Stuff, relations and people will be gone.
From the EU perspective, I can see why it pays to say the US is an unreliable or unnecessary partner. It may or may not be true, but cui bono: EU gets to reindustrialize and invest domestically. Seems like a great idea for EU and US both.
A number of European countries have PUBLICLY come out to say they are suspending cooperation on a number of different fronts. You can only imagine what it’s like in private.
We’re entering a multipolar world. That means more border wars, not less. Everything I’ve seen indicates more demand for American military and intelligence sharing, not less, despite the paradox therein.
Just general EU political news, I remember the UK not sharing some intelligence in Trump 1. I presume that a lot more of that happens behind the scenes.
I totally take your point around border wars, but I would expect to see substantial efforts to reduce the need for US intelligence, given the caprice shown by the current administration.
While America is appearing to be the abject fool here, it’s hard to take any of Europe’s criticisms like this seriously when even in the best of times they have constantly castigated us as fools.
They were calling us fools when we were inventing AI in 2015 too.
I think what we are doing today is horribly executed, but likely motivated by a farsightedness Europe can’t believe is there since we are all just dumb fools. (Collapse of globalism as a sustainable system)
I'm OOTL, but there _is_ a ton of waste when it comes to money we give out.
The article itself even says here:
> [...] the US government has cut scientific grants to academics working on diversity-related topics, halted biomedical grants to international partners, and demanded universities shut down academic units that “belittle” conservative ideas [...]
I'd say it's fair to question if taxpayers should be paying for "diversity related projects." The "belittle conservative ideas" thing is problematic, as that is totally subjective. However, I don't think anyone can say in good faith that most universities aren't incredibly bias. Having been in one circa 2020, it was not a welcoming place if you weren't firmly liberal/progressive. Of course I have to place my disclaimer that I'm not a fan of what Trump is doing, or the man himself for that matter.
New account because I’m a lazy lurker, but “diversity related” projects could be as simple as trying to balance the number of studies done primarily on white males vs other groups. Especially in biomedical research, the gender of the population studied has a profound effect on the relevancy of results.
By many measures, over 75% of studies have historically focused on white male populations, which for a variety of potential research/treatment areas, is important to control for.
Then it's subjective, what they define as a waste of money, this is par for the course when it comes to choosing what to fund.
You do not trust the current administration to be objective when it comes to cutting funding. I don't trust universities to be objective when it comes to funding.
I take any claims/studies from universities regarding gender/race with a huge grain of salt. There is too much room for bias and sensationalism. Not long ago there was a study claiming that white doctors were treating non-white babies with less care than white babies. However, the original authors made several mistakes and the study couldn't replicate.
Funnily enough, if you google percentage of medical studies that can't be replicated, you get 75% too :)
In the previous Trump term "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity."
Conservatives in the past have also tried to belittle research grants to justify eliminating them, such as "studying X about fruit flies." It might sound silly to a lay person but drosophila is an incredibly important model organism from which many discoveries have come.
The problem is a highly political, often careless or incompetent, and sometimes blatantly corrupt administration taking a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to so-called "waste."
> "diversity related topics" included things like biodiversity which is an important area of research and should be apolitical. Not because of a shift in focus, but because of top-down orders to not fund anything related to "diversity."
Do you have a source for this? How can you prove it was simply because it was "diversity related" and not because it someone, somewhere determined the budget needed to be cut because the spending was wasteful?
As far as I can tell, the budget never passed, so we have no way to know one way or another the effects.
I have never seen a government entity claim that cutting their budget wouldn't be catastrophic.
>One environmental researcher NPR spoke to, whose employer receives federal funding, confirmed that they have been advised to avoid the terms "climate change," "sustainable" and "sustainability." Even "biodiversity" is of concern to some of their colleagues because it includes the word "diversity."
(Please don't just respond to the quote - lots of context in the full article.)
People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that.
While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, there is no data or research (duh!) showing the impact of reduced public research.
From what we have seen so far this will make things worse - because for one private research is going to biased. It happens today but public research can counter that. Later there will be no defense. Like MAHA report making up BS sources using AI to push its agenda.
The irony in all of this is - the man pushing ivermectin during a pandemic - one of the biggest replication issue if not the big one - is telling others how to do research and people are defending him.
reply