New executive order puts all grants under political control
A new US executive order placing all federal research grants under direct political control, and the suspension of funding to mathematician Terence Tao’s institute at UCLA, are raising alarms about the future of American science. Commenters argue that tying grants to presidential priorities and allowing them to be cancelled at will will chill academic freedom, drive talent abroad, and accelerate an ongoing slide toward authoritarian governance. Others broaden the debate to whether science should be funded by governments or private philanthropy, how other countries like China and EU states might benefit, and what this reveals about deeper structural flaws in US institutions.
Suspension of Tao/IPAM Funding and Social Media
- Commenters link the grant freeze on a top mathematician and his institute to the new executive order, seeing it as an early concrete example.
- Some describe replies on X as a “cesspool”, citing rising antisemitism in academia and culture-war framing around Qatar and Israel. Others note people still use X because of its concentration of influential voices.
Government vs Private Funding of Science
- One major thread asks why so much science is state-funded rather than supported by philanthropy or companies.
- Researchers reply that private funding:
- Exists but is tiny relative to federal budgets (e.g., NIH scale).
- Is concentrated in donor “pet” areas, often short-term, status-seeking, or profit-oriented.
- Rarely supports basic science, unglamorous fields, or broad open calls.
- Pro‑government arguments: basic research is a public good, underprovided by markets; state funding allows long time horizons, national competitiveness, and talent attraction.
- Counterpoints: universities are bloated, misprioritized (e.g., athletics vs research), and grant overhead had already become a perverse incentive.
Politicization of Grants Under the Executive Order
- The order requires that grants “advance the President’s priorities” and allows cancellation of existing awards; indirect cost rates are capped.
- Scientists stress that the novelty is not that funding is “political” in the abstract, but that:
- Decisions shift from expert peer review to political appointees.
- Previously, awarded grants were stable; now they can be yanked over speech or disfavored topics.
- Some argue this effectively compels self-censorship by researchers and students.
Impact on US Science and Talent
- Many predict severe damage to US scientific leadership, graduate training, and international recruitment; top students may avoid 5‑year PhDs under such uncertainty.
- A minority downplays “end of science” rhetoric, noting other countries (especially China) run highly politicized systems yet produce world-class work.
Authoritarian Drift, Legality, and Systemic Weaknesses
- Large subthreads see this as part of a broader slide into illiberalism: emergency powers, gerrymandering, ignoring lower-court orders, and erosion of norms around checks and balances.
- Others argue the constitution always contained “vulnerabilities”; what’s new is an executive willing to exploit them and a partisan Congress/Supreme Court unwilling to check it.
- Some ask what can be done (e.g., strikes, protest), while others express resignation or focus blame on both current and past parties.
International Response
- Several note this is a prime opportunity for Europe (and China) to lure disillusioned US researchers, though EU bureaucracy and low pay are seen as constraints; China is portrayed as increasingly competitive, especially in AI.