Discussion
Loading...

Discussion

  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
petersuber
@petersuber@fediscience.org  ·  activity timestamp 6 months ago

Colette Delawalla, Victor Ambros, Carl Bergstrom, Carol Greider, Michael Mann, and Brian Nosek have written an excellent critique of the new Trump "gold standard" for science.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/29/trump-american-science

"Instead of being about #OpenScience, it grants administration-aligned political appointees the power to designate any research as scientific misconduct based on their own “judgment” and includes the power to punish the scientists involved…Science does not proceed by sequentially establishing unassailable conclusions, but rather by steadily accumulating numerous lines of evidence, scrutinizing its weaknesses, and pursuing additional evidence. Almost any study…falls short of meeting every aspect of the White House’s list of best practices. This has nothing to do with laziness, let alone misconduct…; it’s simply a consequence of the fact that science is difficult…Political appointees loyal to the president can willfully find justification to label any research finding as scientific misconduct, and then penalize the researchers involved accordingly."

#Censorship #DefendResearch #Lysenko #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolitics

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
petersuber
@petersuber@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 6 months ago

Also see the Center for Open Science ( #COS) statement on the #Trump "gold standard" for science.
https://www.cos.io/about/news/cos-statement-on-restoring-gold-standard-science-executive-order

"The Executive Order suggests that research must achieve these criteria to be considered research done with integrity…This fails to recognize that achieving all of these in any single study is rarely, if ever, achieved. There is no perfect study…Understanding is gained across the accumulation of evidence from many studies… Enforcement by political appointees risks introducing partisan and ideological interference in how science is evaluated and used. Moreover, this process centralizes assessment of evidence as an activity of the state. Responsible policymaking would recognize and support science as a decentralized enterprise."

#Censorship #DefendResearch #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolitics

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
petersuber
@petersuber@fediscience.org replied  ·  activity timestamp 6 months ago

Update. Carolyn Y. Johnson (for WashPo) does a good job covering the scientific objections to the #Trump "gold standard" for science.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025/05/31/trump-science-gold-standard-politics/

#DefendResearch #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolitics

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Log in

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.1-alpha.8 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct
Home
Login