35
OSTP Has a Choice to Make: Science or Politics? (blog.ucs.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has until the end of June to develop new guidance for federal agencies. Federal agencies will use this guidance to create new policies that align with the Trump administration’s dubious definitions of scientific integrity and “gold standard science.”

The goals of scientific integrity policies are to (1) protect the scientific process from inappropriate (like political or corporate) influence, (2) make federal research and evidence accessible without compromising people’s personal data, (3) allow federal scientists to communicate their research without interference, and (4) to use the best available science in decision and policy making.

I mean, I think we all know what the choice will be, right?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

Just going by this article I can't quite tell whether either party has good intentions. Except for that the writer here does not

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    UCS definitely has good intentions.

    I just don't have faith in the Trump OSTP to actually look at the evidence or even bother reading a letter to consider their next steps.

    They've been planning this for a long time. If they can't capitalize on it, they will be getting rid of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Ye I expect so, I don't like the way this author just doesn't bother explaining her points. She just states that she disagrees and says they should be left to their own rules.

    Which is probably fine, but that's just lazy or she's not mentioning the difference for another reason

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    did we read the same article? the author was overtly critical of trump and never mentioned democrats. what specifically makes you think the author doesn’t have good intentions? quite a leap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    She names Trump's points explicitly, but doesn't go beyond "the best practices of this and that institution".

    I can't say they're wrong, I expect a scientific institution to have some integrity to say the least. But either she's too lazy to look them up, or she's not quoting any for a different reason

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent