The proposal includes entirely removing the directorate of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, which includes the division Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, which then houses Cognitive Neuroscience. The directorate of Biological Sciences proposes a more than 70% cut, with similar cuts to other STEM directorates. Per the request:
The U.S. National Science Foundation’s Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request reflects a strategic alignment of resources in a constrained fiscal environment while eliminating woke and weaponized grant programs that previously funded radical DEI projects.
It’s unfortunate that anti-scientific appointees are now running the agency controlling US basic science funding. If you live in the United States, please call your representatives to ask them not to dismantle basic science in the US. This is especially important if you live in a red state.
Working hard to accelerate this crossover point, I see.
China believes in the future. We don’t
deleted by creator
2049 is serious business for them.
I am amazed that the US isn’t trwnding downwards. However, I expect 90% of that is bonuses to admins that are not involved with the actual work
Who needs science funding when there’s a whole planet full of mostly-unbombed elementary schools?
Unbombed? I prefer the shootings to keep those gremlins on edge /s
Cutting by negative % 🧐
Scientists being sneaky
I’ve found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.
Are they asking for a huge increase then, and relying on the fact that congress doesn’t understand that two negatives multiplied together is a positive?
Or is the headline writer just dumb?
I wrote the snippet. I mentioned why I phrased it as such elsewhere in thread:
I’ve found that people misinterpret percentage decreases as odds ratios unless I include the negative sign. The negative sign following decrease language is at best redundant and at worst actually means what is technically opposite to what I want to convey, but including it appears to make things clearer for folks for whatever reason.
Lemmy seems to be better than Reddit in this regard, given that I’ve now twice commented the explanation. Perhaps I’ll try without the negative sign in the future.
Every damn time that country declares a part of itself declining, this man is happy:
