This piece is a bit on the far right of the dial and seems to indicate that it is effecting all of science funding . But here's the main problem NSF doesn't fund hard science. NIS does . Also NSF has a long history of "Diversity" funding since the 1950's so what is difference here ? Just a web site search and you see what areas they fund…
This piece is a bit on the far right of the dial and seems to indicate that it is effecting all of science funding . But here's the main problem NSF doesn't fund hard science. NIS does . Also NSF has a long history of "Diversity" funding since the 1950's so what is difference here ? Just a web site search and you see what areas they fund. The hard sciences like medically/disease/genetic/biological etc is NSF . Yes is a soup of acronyms but they are very different organisations . Yet again the TFP needs to do better work before they publish . I've really been finding may pieces in TFP lacking in good research the last few weeks which is a real indication of just bad editors or no editors ?
Yes NSF, but it's implying all of science and thus NIS has be considered because it's a major funding for medically/disease/genetic/biological which is a big core of science. The other point is has DEI really changed these organisations much ? if you do any google search of lets say STEM funding you see it's always been on the left side of things so is DEI a big problem or is the administration of these organisations always been far left ? Which is the bigger problem ? So if you wanted to change things do you focus on DEI or the whole organisation ? TFP here is missing all of this and that it seems is just sloppy reporting which I've been seeing here and in other places of TFP . These points are easy to find so why is TFP being so sloppy ?
This piece is a bit on the far right of the dial and seems to indicate that it is effecting all of science funding . But here's the main problem NSF doesn't fund hard science. NIS does . Also NSF has a long history of "Diversity" funding since the 1950's so what is difference here ? Just a web site search and you see what areas they fund. The hard sciences like medically/disease/genetic/biological etc is NSF . Yes is a soup of acronyms but they are very different organisations . Yet again the TFP needs to do better work before they publish . I've really been finding may pieces in TFP lacking in good research the last few weeks which is a real indication of just bad editors or no editors ?
From the NSF website:
“What we fund
Broadly, we fund:
Basic research and education across all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except the medical sciences.”
Your comment is a bit on the far left.
The article literally says NSF funding about a hundred times.
Yes NSF, but it's implying all of science and thus NIS has be considered because it's a major funding for medically/disease/genetic/biological which is a big core of science. The other point is has DEI really changed these organisations much ? if you do any google search of lets say STEM funding you see it's always been on the left side of things so is DEI a big problem or is the administration of these organisations always been far left ? Which is the bigger problem ? So if you wanted to change things do you focus on DEI or the whole organisation ? TFP here is missing all of this and that it seems is just sloppy reporting which I've been seeing here and in other places of TFP . These points are easy to find so why is TFP being so sloppy ?