@veritas_first @jrenauardevol Why should anyone believe this delusional cant is coming from either an American taxpayer or voter?

@TaliaRinger It's grimly amusing to see a bunch of anonymous voices indistinguishable from chatbot output (which I'm sure some of them are) talking about "midwit scientists".

@IndianChiefDH @ChrisMurphyCT Sounds a bit non-technical for a biochemist. Where did you publish this work?

@veritas_first More like "Pravda" than "Veritas", it seems.

@IndianChiefDH @ChrisMurphyCT Your argument rests entirely on a claim that you are a former scientist. Without that evidence for that claim, it has no value. On the other hand, you certainly don't talk like a retired former scientist, e.g.: "LOL". Skepticism is warranted.

@IndianChiefDH @ChrisMurphyCT A "former scientist" who puts "higher education" and "research" in scare quotes is not very believable, despite claims in bio. If you're going to argue from authority, who are you?

@TaliaRinger @gimpel_israel What is the basis for the claim that the overhead rates are "absurd"? Clearly SOME overhead is needed to pay for a myriad of services. The Univ. of California system is on the low end with 56% or so; most universities are a bit higher. But it looks reasonable to me!

@Ngnghm @krismicinski You failed.

@Ngnghm @krismicinski This reads like more LLM gibberish and is completely nonresponsive to my questions. You claimed the NSF wastes money on "graft". I can just conclude I won the argument. Fin.

@Ngnghm @krismicinski That makes no sense. How will they do great work without funding? Where is the evidence that any nonnegligible fraction of NSF funding goes to "graft"?

@krismicinski @Ngnghm I'm sure this person — if it is a real person and not a bizarrely prompted LLM, which would explain the weird quasi-religious language! — has no idea of the incredible diversity of research funded by NSF, nor how central novelty is to funding decisions.

@krismicinski No, this is why we have the Article III branch of government.

@gimpel_israel @TaliaRinger

Here is a useful graphic from the AAU showing what indirect costs pay for, like heat and electricity and lights and cleaning and much more.

@Ngnghm This is gibberish worthy of a Russian bot and disconnected from the actual way that scientific research works.

@art_pleb @DKThomp Most science does not have these issues, so it's more like killing the puppy to end its toenail fungus. Cutting off funding to science will not make scientists focus on better replicability. It will make them focus on finding a country that still supports science.

@DKThomp Yes, this insane policy will choke off most academic research by turning it into a huge money-losing sinkhole for universities. Indirect costs pay for things researchers need: lights, electricity, walls and roofs, payroll, etc. The US will lose its technological advantage.

@alexroan @initc3org @Cornell Sorry about the broken links, we have not released the source publicly yet. Should happen in a few weeks.