Thanks for writing this, Judy. I too am overwhelmed by the avalanche of apocalyptic communications forecasting the destruction of science in the US by the Trump administration. Here is a representative example of such writings:
They all ignore the context in which the EOs and DOGE actions should be viewed. The context is ideological capture, politicization, and bureaucratization of science--as illustrated by the the inane programs (funded by federal funding agencies) that have nothing to do with science, discriminatory practices (DEI), insane compliance requirements and overregulation of everything. It all results in a huge waste of taxpayer money and researchers' time and energy. It also drives young people away from science -- who wants to spend their life pushing (electronic) papers around and checking boxes?
If the eventual reduction of the overhead will come with reduction of the regulatory burden, we may end up saving lots of money and making science better. Like it used to be in the US -- dynamic, encouraging initiative, rewarding merit.
The DOGE critics: "methinks thou doth protest too much". Freedom, opportunity, and merit ar classical American values. Under assault for decades by the Woke Mind Virus which captured academia. Anna Krylov & Co. Had to publish this nearly two years ago: https://indefenseofmerit.org/
An excellent piece that inspires 2 quick observations. First, social security actually does a pretty good job protecting privacy even when the result prevents uncovering fraud. About 10 years ago I was made guardian/conservator for a relative whose dishonesty would inspire even the most ardent criminals. In my role I was supposed to try to keep this man honest and repair the harm he had committed to others. One of his many scams involved defrauding Social Security via receipt of inappropriate SSI funds, for which his benefits were being garnished at a rate that would have required him to live to be 104 for full repayment. There was also significant evidence that he has multiple social security numbers under false names to collect benefits. Despite being the court appointed person to resolve these issues and repaying the SSI debt (which all the staff in the office came out to witness as no one EVER shows such honesty with government funds), I was unable to make progress on the "extra" social security numbers because I only had the fake names used. The workers, now very disposed in my favor, acknowledged that multiple numbers were involved but could not release that even to me trying to end the fraud. So...privacy being compromised is hardly the issue here.
Second, one way to resolve the overhead problem and to liberate scholars from political correctness in their universities, would be for federal science agencies to allow scientists to apply for funding directly, NOT through university research offices. In the current system, most contingent faculty (who do the majority of teaching in universities) cannot apply for funding because their universities restrict that privilege to tenured/tenure track employees. This artificially reduces the ideas available for consideration for research and allows universities to charge high over head rates. A better approach was proposed to the Geological Society of America back in 2012. The idea was for professional societies to become portals for grant applications allowing any scientist in that profession access to the federal research system regardless of the position they held in the university. A much lower overhead rate would be assessed to run the portal but more costs for space/equipment would have to be included in the proposed budget. 15 of 17 voting members of GSA present approved this proposal with only myself abstaining and the future president of GSA opposing the proposal. Sadly, GSA Council chose not to proceed with the idea as it would have required the society to take on a whole new role that most of the entrenched powers in both academia and the federal government would oppose. (Given GSA's descent into DEI nonsense, access likely would have been subject to the new political litmus tests that were imposed in the society after the retirement of Executive Director Jack Hess.)
So...like Judy I would agree that Musk and DOGE may be on to something good for science in reforming the old system.
Having spent 27 years at a famous California University I can say with 100% certainty that the complaints about DOGE within academia are knee-jerk politics. If DOGE were a Democrat operation it would be considered a prudent and spectacularly efficient necessity to streamline government. But since it's a Republican operation it's a mean, racist, payback all about revenge by that mean and stupid guy Trump.
"and I emphasize nothing but merit in awarding those grants"
Amen!!
DOGE is great! Yes, they're operating at breakneck speed and, as Musk admitted, will make mistakes, which he said they will correct.
The misuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars is staggering. If parents ran their household in the same manner, they would be bankrupt tout suite. Unfortunately, almost all politicians take the attitude of apres moi, le deluge. Well, le deluge is around the corner - under Biden the national debt went from $27T to $36T. Yes, some was for covid; no, lots of it was for trash. Penny pinching is the order of the day if we don't want le deluge. UNSUSTAINABLE.
A lot of the DOGE criticisms (personal privacy, ...) are desperate throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks Dem propaganda. The zillions of bureaucrats have always had access to citizens personal info. The "kids" that Musk employs are very, very intelligent young professionals with immense skills in software engineering, ... And Musk is a truly extraordinary talent that comes along once a century.
Long live the crotchety! Actually, the fair-minded and smart!
I had thought about applying for a position in DOGE, since I live close to the action here in Maryland. In addition, I have personal knowledge of plenty of shenanigans of various sorts. I decided I would just write them an essay or two of suggestions instead.
This was met by horror by most of my colleagues, who know that I am still engaged in serious research efforts that will be the foundation of our potential R&D startup. Most of them are disgusted by DOGE. I will admit that lots of mistakes are being made by DOGE. And chaos is resulting.
However, DOGE or something like it was absolutely necessary. We were headed for disaster at a breakneck pace. I put the blame squarely on Congress, who were supposed to be doing this job for the last few decades, but obviously did not. We waited so long before starting to trim and update and upgrade, that the system is a horrendous mess.
This sort of periodic trimming and cutbacks have normally occurred fairly regularly. But clearly, this time, things have become out of hand. So, there is going to be some pain for everyone.
Sorry about that. What else were we supposed to do?
FB tip: you can hide people so you never see their posts in your feed (you can still go to their page and see them). I did this years ago (circa 2016) and now my feed is just filled with posts from sites dedicated to my interests in gardening, homesteading, recipes, etc.
In that NSF program, the FORECAST acronym required the Focus (in contrast to other unfocused ones …) and Transformers. And to avoid reference to ORCAS, there had to be someone or something Emerging (I assume Emerging refers to scientists, not the climate).
At the end of Part A) Merit Review Criteria, there is a section that we all clearly associate with merit: “Integration of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities:…”
Although I have been in the U.S. for 34 years, English is not my first language, so I look forward to someone explaining to me the meaning of the instructions that follow it…
Ms. Parrish: That you divide science of climate into: "Lomborgian school of how to deal with climate change and the Thunbergian school," is deeply disturbing. This is like dividing biology into creationists vs trans-activist-pedophiles. It shows a lack of engagement with any science of climate. Lomborg has no more to do with science than Thunberg. He is a political science doctorate, not an actual scientist. Take a look at this criticism of Lomborg.
Speaking from work in the area of climate economics, a real climate science source that tries to speak publicly is Hansen. " Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?" (2025) https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
Hansen is practical, realistic, and I agree with him that the way through this is nuclear power. We are in an albedo change tipping point right now that did not appear in any economist's list of climate event tipping points. (I can say that I predicted there would be missed tipping points.) This is very serious. We are on this ride, and we will need vast amounts of energy to deal with it that will stop making matters worse.
Thanks for writing this, Judy. I too am overwhelmed by the avalanche of apocalyptic communications forecasting the destruction of science in the US by the Trump administration. Here is a representative example of such writings:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00525-1
They all ignore the context in which the EOs and DOGE actions should be viewed. The context is ideological capture, politicization, and bureaucratization of science--as illustrated by the the inane programs (funded by federal funding agencies) that have nothing to do with science, discriminatory practices (DEI), insane compliance requirements and overregulation of everything. It all results in a huge waste of taxpayer money and researchers' time and energy. It also drives young people away from science -- who wants to spend their life pushing (electronic) papers around and checking boxes?
If the eventual reduction of the overhead will come with reduction of the regulatory burden, we may end up saving lots of money and making science better. Like it used to be in the US -- dynamic, encouraging initiative, rewarding merit.
The DOGE critics: "methinks thou doth protest too much". Freedom, opportunity, and merit ar classical American values. Under assault for decades by the Woke Mind Virus which captured academia. Anna Krylov & Co. Had to publish this nearly two years ago: https://indefenseofmerit.org/
An excellent piece that inspires 2 quick observations. First, social security actually does a pretty good job protecting privacy even when the result prevents uncovering fraud. About 10 years ago I was made guardian/conservator for a relative whose dishonesty would inspire even the most ardent criminals. In my role I was supposed to try to keep this man honest and repair the harm he had committed to others. One of his many scams involved defrauding Social Security via receipt of inappropriate SSI funds, for which his benefits were being garnished at a rate that would have required him to live to be 104 for full repayment. There was also significant evidence that he has multiple social security numbers under false names to collect benefits. Despite being the court appointed person to resolve these issues and repaying the SSI debt (which all the staff in the office came out to witness as no one EVER shows such honesty with government funds), I was unable to make progress on the "extra" social security numbers because I only had the fake names used. The workers, now very disposed in my favor, acknowledged that multiple numbers were involved but could not release that even to me trying to end the fraud. So...privacy being compromised is hardly the issue here.
Second, one way to resolve the overhead problem and to liberate scholars from political correctness in their universities, would be for federal science agencies to allow scientists to apply for funding directly, NOT through university research offices. In the current system, most contingent faculty (who do the majority of teaching in universities) cannot apply for funding because their universities restrict that privilege to tenured/tenure track employees. This artificially reduces the ideas available for consideration for research and allows universities to charge high over head rates. A better approach was proposed to the Geological Society of America back in 2012. The idea was for professional societies to become portals for grant applications allowing any scientist in that profession access to the federal research system regardless of the position they held in the university. A much lower overhead rate would be assessed to run the portal but more costs for space/equipment would have to be included in the proposed budget. 15 of 17 voting members of GSA present approved this proposal with only myself abstaining and the future president of GSA opposing the proposal. Sadly, GSA Council chose not to proceed with the idea as it would have required the society to take on a whole new role that most of the entrenched powers in both academia and the federal government would oppose. (Given GSA's descent into DEI nonsense, access likely would have been subject to the new political litmus tests that were imposed in the society after the retirement of Executive Director Jack Hess.)
So...like Judy I would agree that Musk and DOGE may be on to something good for science in reforming the old system.
It is funny that you believe they are using advanced AI and uncovered something that government workers didn't know. This is not so.
Some DEFINITELY knew. You are absolutely correct.
I view DOGE as a method for shining a spotlight on nonsense that was hidden from most.
Having spent 27 years at a famous California University I can say with 100% certainty that the complaints about DOGE within academia are knee-jerk politics. If DOGE were a Democrat operation it would be considered a prudent and spectacularly efficient necessity to streamline government. But since it's a Republican operation it's a mean, racist, payback all about revenge by that mean and stupid guy Trump.
Both Clinton and Obama had similar programs, if I recall. I sure know that George H.W. Bush had them in spades. So did JFK and Truman and others.
Right on. I'm a retired physicist and I see this substantially the same way.
"and I emphasize nothing but merit in awarding those grants"
Amen!!
DOGE is great! Yes, they're operating at breakneck speed and, as Musk admitted, will make mistakes, which he said they will correct.
The misuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars is staggering. If parents ran their household in the same manner, they would be bankrupt tout suite. Unfortunately, almost all politicians take the attitude of apres moi, le deluge. Well, le deluge is around the corner - under Biden the national debt went from $27T to $36T. Yes, some was for covid; no, lots of it was for trash. Penny pinching is the order of the day if we don't want le deluge. UNSUSTAINABLE.
A lot of the DOGE criticisms (personal privacy, ...) are desperate throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks Dem propaganda. The zillions of bureaucrats have always had access to citizens personal info. The "kids" that Musk employs are very, very intelligent young professionals with immense skills in software engineering, ... And Musk is a truly extraordinary talent that comes along once a century.
Long live the crotchety! Actually, the fair-minded and smart!
I had thought about applying for a position in DOGE, since I live close to the action here in Maryland. In addition, I have personal knowledge of plenty of shenanigans of various sorts. I decided I would just write them an essay or two of suggestions instead.
This was met by horror by most of my colleagues, who know that I am still engaged in serious research efforts that will be the foundation of our potential R&D startup. Most of them are disgusted by DOGE. I will admit that lots of mistakes are being made by DOGE. And chaos is resulting.
However, DOGE or something like it was absolutely necessary. We were headed for disaster at a breakneck pace. I put the blame squarely on Congress, who were supposed to be doing this job for the last few decades, but obviously did not. We waited so long before starting to trim and update and upgrade, that the system is a horrendous mess.
This sort of periodic trimming and cutbacks have normally occurred fairly regularly. But clearly, this time, things have become out of hand. So, there is going to be some pain for everyone.
Sorry about that. What else were we supposed to do?
Excellent!
FB tip: you can hide people so you never see their posts in your feed (you can still go to their page and see them). I did this years ago (circa 2016) and now my feed is just filled with posts from sites dedicated to my interests in gardening, homesteading, recipes, etc.
Thank you, Judy!
In that NSF program, the FORECAST acronym required the Focus (in contrast to other unfocused ones …) and Transformers. And to avoid reference to ORCAS, there had to be someone or something Emerging (I assume Emerging refers to scientists, not the climate).
At the end of Part A) Merit Review Criteria, there is a section that we all clearly associate with merit: “Integration of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities:…”
Although I have been in the U.S. for 34 years, English is not my first language, so I look forward to someone explaining to me the meaning of the instructions that follow it…
Ms. Parrish: That you divide science of climate into: "Lomborgian school of how to deal with climate change and the Thunbergian school," is deeply disturbing. This is like dividing biology into creationists vs trans-activist-pedophiles. It shows a lack of engagement with any science of climate. Lomborg has no more to do with science than Thunberg. He is a political science doctorate, not an actual scientist. Take a look at this criticism of Lomborg.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
Speaking from work in the area of climate economics, a real climate science source that tries to speak publicly is Hansen. " Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?" (2025) https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
Hansen is practical, realistic, and I agree with him that the way through this is nuclear power. We are in an albedo change tipping point right now that did not appear in any economist's list of climate event tipping points. (I can say that I predicted there would be missed tipping points.) This is very serious. We are on this ride, and we will need vast amounts of energy to deal with it that will stop making matters worse.
I too would like to see science funding based on merit rather than ideology and beaurocracy-building . Thank you Elon Musk!