203

In their 2027 Budget Request to Congress, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) proposes to cut their own funding by -59% (www.nsf.gov)

submitted 6 months ago by canihasaccount@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The proposal includes entirely removing the directorate of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, which includes the division Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, which then houses Cognitive Neuroscience. The directorate of Biological Sciences proposes a more than 70% cut, with similar cuts to other STEM directorates. Per the request:

The U.S. National Science Foundation's Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request reflects a strategic alignment of resources in a constrained fiscal environment while eliminating woke and weaponized grant programs that previously funded radical DEI projects.

It's unfortunate that anti-scientific appointees are now running the agency controlling US basic science funding. If you live in the United States, please call your representatives to ask them not to dismantle basic science in the US. This is especially important if you live in a red state.

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 59 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Working hard to accelerate this crossover point, I see.

[-] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

China believes in the future. We don't

[-] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

2049 is serious business for them.

[-] ZombieChicken@reddthat.com 14 points 6 months ago

I am amazed that the US isn't trwnding downwards. However, I expect 90% of that is bonuses to admins that are not involved with the actual work

[-] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 40 points 6 months ago

Who needs science funding when there's a whole planet full of mostly-unbombed elementary schools?

[-] TheFrirish@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 5 points 6 months ago

Unbombed? I prefer the shootings to keep those gremlins on edge /s

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Cutting by negative % 🧐

[-] lauha@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

Scientists being sneaky

[-] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I've found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 9 points 6 months ago

Are they asking for a huge increase then, and relying on the fact that congress doesn't understand that two negatives multiplied together is a positive?

Or is the headline writer just dumb?

[-] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I wrote the snippet. I mentioned why I phrased it as such elsewhere in thread:

I've found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.

Lemmy seems to be better than Reddit in this regard, given that I've now twice commented the explanation. Perhaps I'll try without the negative sign in the future.