Technology

72217 readers

3234 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

OSTP Has a Choice to Make: Science or Politics? (blog.ucs.org)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week 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