Mark Histed

I fully get the frustration. However this overestimates how much the average (busy) person pays attn to politics. When @vanhollen.senate.gov went to El Salvador it created a media event and gt information out to the public, and we know that b/c polls shifted significantly afterward. That’s what is

We should get to the point where NFL and crime drama ratings go down — because the whole country is on the edge of their seats waiting for the next installment of the true crime Trump Family Corruption Show, presented by Congressional Majority Oversight, Inc.

I fully get the frustration. However this overestimates how much the average (busy) person pays attn to politics. When @vanhollen.senate.gov went to El Salvador it created a media event and gt information out to the public, and we know that b/c polls shifted significantly afterward. That’s what is

‘The docs reveal: - Explicit plans by Meta to discredit [scientists]… - Explicit plans to work w [science orgs] on social media and youth mental health with goals to “get credit” for proposing the assessment and “greatly shape the nature of the questions they will explore.”’ This is one playbook…

Corporate / rightwing-movement and donor playbook

‘The docs reveal: - Explicit plans by Meta to discredit [scientists]… - Explicit plans to work w [science orgs] on social media and youth mental health with goals to “get credit” for proposing the assessment and “greatly shape the nature of the questions they will explore.”’ This is one playbook…

… the “co-opt” playbook to use their money to change science. And to play PR games. And limit the freedom of internal scientists. But there’s another playbook that oligarchs are also running now on biomedical science; the “law and economics” playbook.

"In my opinion, this Article is a deathblow to the unitary executive theory..." And, relevant to science: "Lawmakers throughout US history have [shielded from political control] modes of administration that ... handled sensitive money-related tasks." I'd say science grantmaking is exactly that.

I feel like this thread's audience is the intersection set of admin law people who care about the science agencies and .... maybe that's two people total @sbagen.bsky.social and @kalimurray.bsky.social

"In my opinion, this Article is a deathblow to the unitary executive theory..." And, relevant to science: "Lawmakers throughout US history have [shielded from political control] modes of administration that ... handled sensitive money-related tasks." I'd say science grantmaking is exactly that.

also, NIH is the best model in the govt for this quasi-judicial mode of grant decision-making. NSF was less formal; DOD medical research and DOE grants usually much less-so. As a historian of scientific review told me recently, NIH's review institute, CSR, seemed to run a study of itself every year

"In my opinion, this Article is a deathblow to the unitary executive theory..." And, relevant to science: "Lawmakers throughout US history have [shielded from political control] modes of administration that ... handled sensitive money-related tasks." I'd say science grantmaking is exactly that.

And it makes sense to insulate: scientific project selection is exactly the kind of function that benefits from independent pursuit of many ideas and should be set a step away from hierarchical political control. That was the (informal) system at NIH for decades, now changed by the Trump admin.

"In my opinion, this Article is a deathblow to the unitary executive theory..." And, relevant to science: "Lawmakers throughout US history have [shielded from political control] modes of administration that ... handled sensitive money-related tasks." I'd say science grantmaking is exactly that.

Jail

“Doctors and scientists don’t have a clear understanding of [how antidepressants work.]” Right. Because the human brain is an incredibly complex network w/ trillions of connections. My team at NIMH, along w/ thousands of other NIH-funded scientists, is doing the basic science to understand this. 1/

Here’s a piece I wrote about the dense networks of the brain and why understanding them is essential to understanding brain function— and thus understanding how antidepressants work.

“Doctors and scientists don’t have a clear understanding of [how antidepressants work.]” Right. Because the human brain is an incredibly complex network w/ trillions of connections. My team at NIMH, along w/ thousands of other NIH-funded scientists, is doing the basic science to understand this. 1/

This is a project that requires people to work together to advance the leading edge of knowledge. That requires diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“Doctors and scientists don’t have a clear understanding of [how antidepressants work.]” Right. Because the human brain is an incredibly complex network w/ trillions of connections. My team at NIMH, along w/ thousands of other NIH-funded scientists, is doing the basic science to understand this. 1/

🧪 #medsky #neuroscience

“Doctors and scientists don’t have a clear understanding of [how antidepressants work.]” Right. Because the human brain is an incredibly complex network w/ trillions of connections. My team at NIMH, along w/ thousands of other NIH-funded scientists, is doing the basic science to understand this. 1/

This is why the next NIMH institute director choice is so important. The public needs someone who understands tha broad scope of basic brain science and will nurture lots of different ideas. Not a new director who’s focused on one or a few ideas.

We can hope that after the midterms there will be a public transparent oversight process that turns this report into a series of high-profile hearings. Much of the public now gets news via video; Congress can use oversight to make compelling video so the country pays attention.

And having a major public oversight process is important for science because there are many attacks on cancer cures that we need accountability for if we want to rebuild. Public and transparent oversight is needed to chart a new future for US science

Also true for US civil servants as well. They are asked to be nonpartisan, but also take an oath to the Constitution (that is, to liberal democracy). The bounds of a nonpartisan civil service should encompass any political leadership that respects democracy.

“I have stopped sending paper greeting cards because of the unpredictable delays. One card took a month to arrive.” That was a relative talking to me on the phone tonight. USPS is worth some investigation.