#omb — Public Fediverse posts

#NIH is terminating #grants again, this time focused on #healthdisparities. The letter explains that #Bhattacharya’s priorities include “measurable health outcomes” and “solution-oriented approaches” in #health research
Letter says agency is “adjusting its extramural research portfolio, which includes terminating grant awards”
Terminations come as #WhiteHouse #OMB is moving forward with regulation that would give political appointees power to cancel #peerreviewed grants.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-director-bhattacharya-kills-more-health-disparities-grants

#NIH is terminating #grants again, this time focused on #healthdisparities. The letter explains that #Bhattacharya’s priorities include “measurable health outcomes” and “solution-oriented approaches” in #health research
Letter says agency is “adjusting its extramural research portfolio, which includes terminating grant awards”
Terminations come as #WhiteHouse #OMB is moving forward with regulation that would give political appointees power to cancel #peerreviewed grants.
https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-director-bhattacharya-kills-more-health-disparities-grants

Update. But the House is not ready to adopt the Senate bill. In part, the two chambers disagree on how to fund the govt. And in part, they disagree on the merits of the #OMB proposal to politicize federally funded research.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-funding-bill-continuing-resolution-approved/

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

Update. But the House is not ready to adopt the Senate bill. In part, the two chambers disagree on how to fund the govt. And in part, they disagree on the merits of the #OMB proposal to politicize federally funded research.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-funding-bill-continuing-resolution-approved/

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

The Senate is willing to fund the fed govt through December provided the #Trump admin does not finalize or implement the #OMB plan to politicize federally-funded science.
stm-assoc.org/omb-grant-re...

#Bipartisan #DefendResearch #Funding #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolitics

OMB grant regulation paused by...

Update. In a bipartisan move, the Senate has temporarily blocked implementation of the vile #OMB plan to politicize federally-funded science.
https://stm-assoc.org/omb-grant-regulation-paused-by-congress/

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

Update. In a bipartisan move, the Senate has temporarily blocked implementation of the vile #OMB plan to politicize federally-funded science.
https://stm-assoc.org/omb-grant-regulation-paused-by-congress/

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

Update. Senate Dems w/ a few Republicans take a step in right direction:

"Senate finalizes funding patch that would block Trump’s grant overhaul."
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/02/senate-finalizes-funding-patch-that-would-block-trumps-grant-overhaul-01021696

"When lawmakers return to the Capitol in September, House Republican leaders must then decide whether to take up the Senate funding patch, which contains a significant rebuke of President Donald Trump — a temporary ban on finalizing the White House proposal to put political appointees in charge of approving grants."

#Censorship #DefendResearch #Funding #OMB #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolitics

Update. Senate Dems w/ a few Republicans take a step in right direction:

"Senate finalizes funding patch that would block Trump’s grant overhaul."
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/02/senate-finalizes-funding-patch-that-would-block-trumps-grant-overhaul-01021696

"When lawmakers return to the Capitol in September, House Republican leaders must then decide whether to take up the Senate funding patch, which contains a significant rebuke of President Donald Trump — a temporary ban on finalizing the White House proposal to put political appointees in charge of approving grants."

#Censorship #DefendResearch #Funding #OMB #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolitics

Update. #ProPublica (@ProPublica) covers many of the good reasons to reject the #OMB proposal, which would politicize federally funded research and limit international collaboration.
https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-science-grants-russell-vought-omb

One of those good reasons is that the OMB rules would have prevented the discovery of the #HiggsBoson, which needed a large, international team.

PS: I used the same example in my comment to the OMB earlier this month. In context: "Good science knows no borders, and many important discoveries are made by international teams. Some notable examples with US funding and participation are the discovery of the Higgs boson (2012), the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), the eradication of smallpox (1980), and the Manhattan Project (1942-1946)."

#DefendResearch #Funding #OMB #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolit

Update. #ProPublica (@ProPublica) covers many of the good reasons to reject the #OMB proposal, which would politicize federally funded research and limit international collaboration.
https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-science-grants-russell-vought-omb

One of those good reasons is that the OMB rules would have prevented the discovery of the #HiggsBoson, which needed a large, international team.

PS: I used the same example in my comment to the OMB earlier this month. In context: "Good science knows no borders, and many important discoveries are made by international teams. Some notable examples with US funding and participation are the discovery of the Higgs boson (2012), the Human Genome Project (1990-2003), the eradication of smallpox (1980), and the Manhattan Project (1942-1946)."

#DefendResearch #Funding #OMB #Trump #TrumpVResearch #USPol #USPolit

'Collins took particular issue with the provision that would allow political appointees to review grant proposals, noting that it would undermine the goal of awarding funds “based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.'

https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-science-grants-russell-vought-omb

#propublica #omb #russellvought #science #uspol

'Collins took particular issue with the provision that would allow political appointees to review grant proposals, noting that it would undermine the goal of awarding funds “based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.'

https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-science-grants-russell-vought-omb

#propublica #omb #russellvought #science #uspol

Update. Now the National Science Foundation (#NSF) is calling for public comments on a plan to revise its research-funding procedures. Comments are due by August 24.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/24/2026-12725/agency-information-collection-activities-comment-request-national-science-foundation-proposalaward

The full text of the proposal is not online for display in a browser. (Why?) But you can download it from this page.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NSF-2026-OTR-0001-0003

The text is explicit that one purpose of the new proposal is to align the NSF rules with the proposed, new (May 2026) #OMB rules.

Note that the public comment period on the OMB proposal only closed on July 13. OMB is still considering the comments -- which are overwhelmingly negative -- and has not yet made final rules. In that sense, the NSF is unquestionably obeying in advance.

Also note that if many people skip commenting on the NSF plan (say, because they commented on the OMB plan), NSF might infer that not many people care or that opposition to the OMB plan doesn't carry over to the NSF plan. This looks deliberate. It would have been easy for NSF to wait for final rules from OMB.

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

Update. Now the National Science Foundation (#NSF) is calling for public comments on a plan to revise its research-funding procedures. Comments are due by August 24.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/06/24/2026-12725/agency-information-collection-activities-comment-request-national-science-foundation-proposalaward

The full text of the proposal is not online for display in a browser. (Why?) But you can download it from this page.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/NSF-2026-OTR-0001-0003

The text is explicit that one purpose of the new proposal is to align the NSF rules with the proposed, new (May 2026) #OMB rules.

Note that the public comment period on the OMB proposal only closed on July 13. OMB is still considering the comments -- which are overwhelmingly negative -- and has not yet made final rules. In that sense, the NSF is unquestionably obeying in advance.

Also note that if many people skip commenting on the NSF plan (say, because they commented on the OMB plan), NSF might infer that not many people care or that opposition to the OMB plan doesn't carry over to the NSF plan. This looks deliberate. It would have been easy for NSF to wait for final rules from OMB.

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

“Federal officials said in court documents that they halted billions of dollars in funding for energy projects to states “based solely” on whether they backed President Trump in the 2024 election.”

#grants #politization #OMB #equalprotection #equalopportunity #climatechange #energy #RussellVought

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/business/trump-state-grants-canceled.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0FA.eijk.mro2gt3txKS_&smid=nytcore-ios-share

“Federal officials said in court documents that they halted billions of dollars in funding for energy projects to states “based solely” on whether they backed President Trump in the 2024 election.”

#grants #politization #OMB #equalprotection #equalopportunity #climatechange #energy #RussellVought

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/24/business/trump-state-grants-canceled.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0FA.eijk.mro2gt3txKS_&smid=nytcore-ios-share

Fellow #science #editors — whether you’re on staff or #freelance like me — please submit your critical comment to help stop the weaponization of the National Science Foundation by Russell Vought's Office of Management and Budget. #NSF #OMB #research 🧪

https://fight2win.standupforscience.net/campaign/ProtectNSF_Comment/

Fellow #science #editors — whether you’re on staff or #freelance like me — please submit your critical comment to help stop the weaponization of the National Science Foundation by Russell Vought's Office of Management and Budget. #NSF #OMB #research 🧪

https://fight2win.standupforscience.net/campaign/ProtectNSF_Comment/

#Scientists overwhelmingly against rule change that would give political appointees say over science #grants
Hundreds of thousands of scientists, including Nobel laureates, warn changes to way federal grants are approved would greatly damage American #science
Rule would alter #OMB regulations to give political appointees in scientific agencies rather than panels of peer reviewers that represent their fields power to choose which grants are approved
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-overwhelmingly-against-rule-change-that-would-give-political-appointees-say-over-science-grants/
https://archive.ph/eExMI

#Scientists overwhelmingly against rule change that would give political appointees say over science #grants
Hundreds of thousands of scientists, including Nobel laureates, warn changes to way federal grants are approved would greatly damage American #science
Rule would alter #OMB regulations to give political appointees in scientific agencies rather than panels of peer reviewers that represent their fields power to choose which grants are approved
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-overwhelmingly-against-rule-change-that-would-give-political-appointees-say-over-science-grants/
https://archive.ph/eExMI

Our object lesson on tyranny in service of industry will be advanced when these opinions are ignored.

"The U.S. science community this week finished registering its overwhelming opposition to a sweeping proposal by President Donald Trump’s administration to impose tighter political control over how the federal government manages trillions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, including those spent on research.

Now, scientists and others are waiting to see how the administration responds to the outpouring of nearly 497,000 comments on the 412-page proposal that were submitted by the 13 July deadline. The administration has said it wants to finalize the new guidelines by 1 October."

#omb
#ScientificIntegrity

https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-researchers-outraged-proposed-changes-federal-grants

Our object lesson on tyranny in service of industry will be advanced when these opinions are ignored.

"The U.S. science community this week finished registering its overwhelming opposition to a sweeping proposal by President Donald Trump’s administration to impose tighter political control over how the federal government manages trillions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, including those spent on research.

Now, scientists and others are waiting to see how the administration responds to the outpouring of nearly 497,000 comments on the 412-page proposal that were submitted by the 13 July deadline. The administration has said it wants to finalize the new guidelines by 1 October."

#omb
#ScientificIntegrity

https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-researchers-outraged-proposed-changes-federal-grants

But what’s the next step? Call both of your #senators and your #representative and demand that they tell you what steps they are taking **right now** to stop the #OMB and the current administration from hobbling #science and our #health. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cherylmurray_playtilthebuzzer-federalgrants-nonprofitleadership-share-7482784078702858241-X-Z1/ 3/3

But what’s the next step? Call both of your #senators and your #representative and demand that they tell you what steps they are taking **right now** to stop the #OMB and the current administration from hobbling #science and our #health. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cherylmurray_playtilthebuzzer-federalgrants-nonprofitleadership-share-7482784078702858241-X-Z1/ 3/3

Thank goodness, people from all walks of life made 496,769 comments on the #OMB proposal’s website about the effects the proposed rules would have on everyone in this country! 2/3

Thank goodness, people from all walks of life made 496,769 comments on the #OMB proposal’s website about the effects the proposed rules would have on everyone in this country! 2/3

So you’ve seen posts by me and lots of other people about the rules proposed by the US Office of Management and Budget that would in effect place a “Going Out of Business” sign on the laboratories of American #science. #OMB 1/3

So you’ve seen posts by me and lots of other people about the rules proposed by the US Office of Management and Budget that would in effect place a “Going Out of Business” sign on the laboratories of American #science. #OMB 1/3

Researchers flood OMB with 340,000 comments against proposed grant rules, 'This will guarantee Chinese and European dominance

https://1ban.news/omb-grant-proposal-researcher-outrage/
#1ban #omb #grant #proposal #researcher #science

Researchers flood OMB with 340,000 comments against proposed grant rules, 'This will guarantee Chinese and European dominance

https://1ban.news/omb-grant-proposal-researcher-outrage/
#1ban #omb #grant #proposal #researcher #science

“When you mix science and politics, you get politics:*…

Tina Hesman Saey on a looming threat to the U.S…

Soviet scientists in the 1930s knew what could happen if they bucked the party line: denunciation, firing and banishment from the scientific establishment, even imprisonment and death. Political reprisals against those who opposed the views of dictator Joseph Stalin and his followers — and the dubious science they endorsed — led to the starvation of millions, as well as to decades of lost progress in fields from agriculture to molecular biology.

Now, scientists are warning that history could repeat itself — but in the United States.

A new proposal from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget would put political appointees in charge of funding decisions traditionally overseen by scientists. In recent years, the federal government has funded about 40 percent of basic science research in the United States.

The OMB’s more than 400-page proposed rule change would let political appointees decide how to hand out federal research funds and who can get them. It would cut funding for collaboration with scientists in other countries and restrict scientists’ ability to communicate their findings. What’s more, it could prevent research on matters that President Donald Trump’s administration has deemed “not in the national interest” — such as studies on health disparities, mRNA-based vaccines and research that doesn’t recognize biological sex as a strict binary.

The new rules would also give OMB the power to rescind previously approved research funds. The proposal “poses a sweeping threat to federal grantmaking and the responsible stewardship of American taxpayer dollars,” the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science Foundation said in a report. In addition, it would impact nonscientific grants supporting services for mental health, housing, education, veterans and Tribal nations, affecting the health and well-being of millions.

So far, OMB has received more than 98,000 comments on the proposal. The public comment period closes July 13. It then will be up to OMB to decide whether to keep the rule as is, revise it or scrap it.

These far-reaching measures are already drawing parallels to dark moments in scientific history. Some researchers say the recent mass firings, policy changes and grant cancellations at federal research institutions, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, closely mirror what happened in the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. “A similar threat now hangs over U.S. science,” the editorial board of The New England Journal of Medicine wrote in June.

Its editorial invoked the example of Trofim Lysenko [see here], an agronomist and astute political operator who rose to power in the 1930s Soviet Union under Stalin.

Until the 1930s, “the Soviet Union was a real powerhouse in the field of genetics,” says Lee Dugatkin, an evolutionary biologist and historian of science at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

Then, Lysenko came along. “This guy was your sort of classic charlatan,” Dugatkin says. “He had the equivalent of a mail order degree in agriculture, but he was quite good with the press, and he started to basically spread this idea out there that he was capable of dramatically increasing crop yield, particularly wheat.”

Lysenko’s supposed innovation was a process called vernalization and amounted to soaking seeds in freezing water. The resulting plants — and all their offspring — should be resistant to the U.S.S.R.’s famously cold winters, Lysenko reasoned.

His reasoning was based on a disproven idea in evolutionary biology called Lamarckian inheritance. French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and his followers thought that things an organism experiences in its lifetime can be handed down to the next generation. The classic example is a giraffe that has to stretch to reach leaves producing offspring with long necks.

This idea ran counter to Mendelian genetics, which holds that genes — not environmental influences — control traits and are passed to offspring. Mendelian geneticists thought it would take five years to breed more cold-tolerant crops. Lysenko said he could do it in two to three years.

Stalin didn’t have time to wait. He was trying to get collective farms going and needed to increase crop yields to feed more than 150 million people. Large parts of the country had already suffered from famine in 1932 and 1933 and about 6 million people died. Some resorted to cannibalism.

Stalin embraced Lysenko’s quick-fix approach. That decision, says Michael Gordin, a historian of science at Princeton University, was “something that the majority of people at the time, and everyone since, considers the wrong side of the dispute.”

Lysenko was put in charge of a prestigious genetics institute and forced his scientifically unsound farming practices on the collective farms. His methods were disastrous.

Soaking seeds in freezing water hampered germination, leading to crop losses. Millions starved. Meanwhile, Mendelian genetics was branded a “whore of capitalism,” and geneticists were forced to renounce their views or lose their jobs. Many were jailed, and almost a dozen were executed or died in prison.

The Soviet Union lost its scientific leadership role and sat on the sidelines for important scientific discoveries of the 1950s and beyond. One, Gordin says, was the development of “massively” productive hybrid corn. The country also missed out on the discovery of DNA and the advent of molecular biology, putting Soviet genetics decades behind the rest of the world.

Soviet genetics did not recover from Lysenko’s influence until after the break-up of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gordin says. “I think you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks that … Russia is today, or Ukraine, or any post-Soviet successor state, is a leading molecular biology country.”…

The Soviets did it, and it didn’t end well: “Here’s what happens when you put politicians in charge of science,” from @thsaey.bsky.social in @sciencenews.bsky.social.

See also: Idiocracy

* John M. Barry

###

As we remember the past so as not to repeat it, we might recall that it was on this date in 1834 that the Spanish Inquisition (finally) ended. Authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478, the Inqusition was initially led by inquisitors (Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martín) who were appointed by the future Catholic monarchs, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. It was originally (ostensibly) intended primarily to identify heretics; its aim, to maintain Christian orthodoxy. But it became an effective instrument of state power by replacing the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control.

Over its course, the Inquisition prosecuted an estimated 150,000 people for various offences. An estimated 3,000–5,000 were turned over to the state for execution, particularly in the initial 50 years, mostly by burning at the stake. Other punishments included penance and public flogging, exile, enslavement on galleys, and prison terms ranging from several years to life. In many of these punishments an important motive was the confiscation of all the victims’ property.

As Monty Python observed, “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.” And nobody expected it to last 356 years.

“When you mix science and politics, you get politics:*…

Tina Hesman Saey on a looming threat to the U.S…

Soviet scientists in the 1930s knew what could happen if they bucked the party line: denunciation, firing and banishment from the scientific establishment, even imprisonment and death. Political reprisals against those who opposed the views of dictator Joseph Stalin and his followers — and the dubious science they endorsed — led to the starvation of millions, as well as to decades of lost progress in fields from agriculture to molecular biology.

Now, scientists are warning that history could repeat itself — but in the United States.

A new proposal from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget would put political appointees in charge of funding decisions traditionally overseen by scientists. In recent years, the federal government has funded about 40 percent of basic science research in the United States.

The OMB’s more than 400-page proposed rule change would let political appointees decide how to hand out federal research funds and who can get them. It would cut funding for collaboration with scientists in other countries and restrict scientists’ ability to communicate their findings. What’s more, it could prevent research on matters that President Donald Trump’s administration has deemed “not in the national interest” — such as studies on health disparities, mRNA-based vaccines and research that doesn’t recognize biological sex as a strict binary.

The new rules would also give OMB the power to rescind previously approved research funds. The proposal “poses a sweeping threat to federal grantmaking and the responsible stewardship of American taxpayer dollars,” the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science Foundation said in a report. In addition, it would impact nonscientific grants supporting services for mental health, housing, education, veterans and Tribal nations, affecting the health and well-being of millions.

So far, OMB has received more than 98,000 comments on the proposal. The public comment period closes July 13. It then will be up to OMB to decide whether to keep the rule as is, revise it or scrap it.

These far-reaching measures are already drawing parallels to dark moments in scientific history. Some researchers say the recent mass firings, policy changes and grant cancellations at federal research institutions, including the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, closely mirror what happened in the U.S.S.R. under Stalin. “A similar threat now hangs over U.S. science,” the editorial board of The New England Journal of Medicine wrote in June.

Its editorial invoked the example of Trofim Lysenko [see here], an agronomist and astute political operator who rose to power in the 1930s Soviet Union under Stalin.

Until the 1930s, “the Soviet Union was a real powerhouse in the field of genetics,” says Lee Dugatkin, an evolutionary biologist and historian of science at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

Then, Lysenko came along. “This guy was your sort of classic charlatan,” Dugatkin says. “He had the equivalent of a mail order degree in agriculture, but he was quite good with the press, and he started to basically spread this idea out there that he was capable of dramatically increasing crop yield, particularly wheat.”

Lysenko’s supposed innovation was a process called vernalization and amounted to soaking seeds in freezing water. The resulting plants — and all their offspring — should be resistant to the U.S.S.R.’s famously cold winters, Lysenko reasoned.

His reasoning was based on a disproven idea in evolutionary biology called Lamarckian inheritance. French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and his followers thought that things an organism experiences in its lifetime can be handed down to the next generation. The classic example is a giraffe that has to stretch to reach leaves producing offspring with long necks.

This idea ran counter to Mendelian genetics, which holds that genes — not environmental influences — control traits and are passed to offspring. Mendelian geneticists thought it would take five years to breed more cold-tolerant crops. Lysenko said he could do it in two to three years.

Stalin didn’t have time to wait. He was trying to get collective farms going and needed to increase crop yields to feed more than 150 million people. Large parts of the country had already suffered from famine in 1932 and 1933 and about 6 million people died. Some resorted to cannibalism.

Stalin embraced Lysenko’s quick-fix approach. That decision, says Michael Gordin, a historian of science at Princeton University, was “something that the majority of people at the time, and everyone since, considers the wrong side of the dispute.”

Lysenko was put in charge of a prestigious genetics institute and forced his scientifically unsound farming practices on the collective farms. His methods were disastrous.

Soaking seeds in freezing water hampered germination, leading to crop losses. Millions starved. Meanwhile, Mendelian genetics was branded a “whore of capitalism,” and geneticists were forced to renounce their views or lose their jobs. Many were jailed, and almost a dozen were executed or died in prison.

The Soviet Union lost its scientific leadership role and sat on the sidelines for important scientific discoveries of the 1950s and beyond. One, Gordin says, was the development of “massively” productive hybrid corn. The country also missed out on the discovery of DNA and the advent of molecular biology, putting Soviet genetics decades behind the rest of the world.

Soviet genetics did not recover from Lysenko’s influence until after the break-up of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Gordin says. “I think you’d be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks that … Russia is today, or Ukraine, or any post-Soviet successor state, is a leading molecular biology country.”…

The Soviets did it, and it didn’t end well: “Here’s what happens when you put politicians in charge of science,” from @thsaey.bsky.social in @sciencenews.bsky.social.

See also: Idiocracy

* John M. Barry

###

As we remember the past so as not to repeat it, we might recall that it was on this date in 1834 that the Spanish Inquisition (finally) ended. Authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478, the Inqusition was initially led by inquisitors (Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martín) who were appointed by the future Catholic monarchs, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. It was originally (ostensibly) intended primarily to identify heretics; its aim, to maintain Christian orthodoxy. But it became an effective instrument of state power by replacing the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control.

Over its course, the Inquisition prosecuted an estimated 150,000 people for various offences. An estimated 3,000–5,000 were turned over to the state for execution, particularly in the initial 50 years, mostly by burning at the stake. Other punishments included penance and public flogging, exile, enslavement on galleys, and prison terms ranging from several years to life. In many of these punishments an important motive was the confiscation of all the victims’ property.

As Monty Python observed, “nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.” And nobody expected it to last 356 years.

RE: https://mastodon.social/@RonSupportsYou/116907072705169616

The ongoing assault on #science by the current administration is permanently damaging the lead the US has enjoyed for generations. It seems like an own-goal but remember reality has a well known liberal bias and these people hate the truth. Daniel Drezer about how you can stand up to the state censorship of science the #OMB is planning to roll out.

RE: https://mastodon.social/@RonSupportsYou/116907072705169616

The ongoing assault on #science by the current administration is permanently damaging the lead the US has enjoyed for generations. It seems like an own-goal but remember reality has a well known liberal bias and these people hate the truth. Daniel Drezer about how you can stand up to the state censorship of science the #OMB is planning to roll out.

The OMB has proposed a rule that would put political appointees in charge of federal research funding, and the public comment period closes tomorrow (July 13).

I spent the afternoon writing an open letter about it, because history could not be clearer about what happens when politicians overrule scientists on scientific questions.

The current administration denounces communism at every opportunity while simultaneously reaching for the Soviet playbook. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If you work in data, science, healthcare, education, or any field that depends on evidence-based decision making, please consider leaving a comment of your own. Over 50,000 people already have.

https://datavolume.xyz/2026/07/12/An-Open-Letter-to-the-OMB-Do-Not-Let-This-Be-Our-Lysenko-Moment.html

Edit: My comment is posted with Comment Tracking Number
mrj-bl8b-vpvm

#Science #Policy #EvidenceBased #OMB #PublicComment

The OMB has proposed a rule that would put political appointees in charge of federal research funding, and the public comment period closes tomorrow (July 13).

I spent the afternoon writing an open letter about it, because history could not be clearer about what happens when politicians overrule scientists on scientific questions.

The current administration denounces communism at every opportunity while simultaneously reaching for the Soviet playbook. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If you work in data, science, healthcare, education, or any field that depends on evidence-based decision making, please consider leaving a comment of your own. Over 50,000 people already have.

https://datavolume.xyz/2026/07/12/An-Open-Letter-to-the-OMB-Do-Not-Let-This-Be-Our-Lysenko-Moment.html

Edit: My comment is posted with Comment Tracking Number
mrj-bl8b-vpvm

#Science #Policy #EvidenceBased #OMB #PublicComment

Here's What Happens When You Put Politicians in Charge of Science

https://1ban.news/omb-politicians-lysenko-science-history/
#1ban #omb #politicians #lysenko #science #research

Here’s what happens when you put #politicians in charge of #science
A new proposal from #OMB would put political appointees in charge of funding decisions traditionally overseen by scientists. Federal gov funded about 40% of basic science research in #UnitedStates
It could prevent research on matters Trump deemed “not in the national interest” — such as studies on health disparities, mRNA-based vaccines and research that biological sex ins't binary
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/omb-politicians-lysenko-science-history
https://archive.ph/WLYJi

We Mapped Rural #DataCenter Development – and Opposition. Here’s What We Found

Though the majority of data centers are located in urban or suburban areas, rural communities face unique challenges in the data center development landscape.

by Julia Tilton and Sarah Alexander Melotte June 29, 2026

Excerpt: "Though the majority of in-progress #datacenters are in metropolitan areas, our reporting and data analysis show that large data centers, characteristic of the current boom, represent outsized investments in rural areas. Smaller populations often mean smaller tax bases and fewer government officials, leaving rural communities with fewer resources to negotiate deals with developers or weather the tax revenue fallout after facility closures.

The Geography of the Data Center Boom

"The following map shows the number of data centers in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan, or rural, counties. As of June 2026, approximately 30 of the 529 data centers currently in operation are located in rural counties, representing about 6% of operating data centers. At the time of this analysis, 16 rural data centers were either recently approved or currently under construction, representing about 12% of all in-progress projects.

"The Daily Yonder uses a county-level definition of rural derived from the Office of Management and Budget (#OMB). All counties outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) are classified as rural for the purposes of this analysis.

Information on the locations of data centers comes from #FracTrackerAlliance, an organization providing the public with interactive tools to understand #oil, #gas, #petrochemical, and data center development across the country.

"While there are many other datasets out there tracking data center development, few of them are publicly accessible, making a complete analysis difficult. We chose #FracTracker because of the organization’s methods for obtaining data and the monthly frequency with which it updates the database. We saw that frequency as a key metric for tracking this fast-evolving issue. FracTracker obtains information from crowd sourcing, media announcements, partner datasets, and public records. While the organization is primarily focused on proposed data centers, it is slowly adding existing data centers to the database.

"That means that the data used in this analysis is preliminary. Because it is a work in progress, FracTracker encourages readers to share new and updated information about data centers in their own communities via a submission form."

Learn more:
https://dailyyonder.com/we-mapped-rural-data-center-development-and-opposition-heres-what-we-found/2026/06/29/

#USDatacenterMap #BigOilAndGas #BigData #DatacenterResistance #USPol #RuralAreas #AISucks