特朗普政府对科学研究的威胁
The Trump administration's Threat to Scientific Research

原始链接: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/07/the-trump-administrations-threat-to-scientific-research.html

评论人士正对特朗普政府的一项拟议规则发出警告,该规则将彻底改革联邦研究经费的授予方式。通过将权力集中在管理和预算办公室,该法规授予政治任命官员广泛的自由裁量权,以取消资助或针对特定接受者。观察人士警告称,此举将导致科研政治化、腐败以及科学公正性的削弱。 作者曾在此前的著作《美国科学的国有化》中预警过这一威胁。他认为,此举标志着美国历史上一贯成功且去中心化的资助模式发生了灾难性的偏离。尽管政府声称该规则旨在提高问责制,但专家们认为,这实际上是对研究工作实施意识形态上的门槛限制。 通过转向威权政体中常见的集权控制,该政府正威胁要打破长期以来使美国科学免受党派干扰的脆弱平衡。批评者一致认为,这种权力攫取是在以牺牲国家进步为代价来服务于政治利益,从而危及从医学到国家安全等各个领域的未来发现。归根结底,这一转变冒着摧毁一项重要美国美德的风险——即科学的独立性。这种美德一旦被摧毁,重建将极其困难。

这场 Hacker News 的讨论聚焦于特朗普政府在科学研究和移民政策方面引发的担忧。 评论者认为,对移民和研究经费的敌意正在削弱美国的竞争力,尤其是在面对中国日益增长的 AI 优势时。批评者指出,由于行政职能的失调,有才华的研究人员正被拒之门外,无法留在美国。 这场辩论也突显了对科研体系内部的批判;一些用户认为,联邦资助的机构缺乏问责制并存在系统性滥用,建议进行更严格的审计。另一些人则提到了拉塞尔·沃特(Russell Vought)等特定政治人物,声称意识形态的干预——例如取消特定的研究项目——正在造成可能需要数十年才能修复的长期损害。 最终,参与者对美国科学的未来表示深切悲观,将当前的政治气候描述为即将到来的独裁统治与潜在的选举变革之间的二元斗争。此外,人们还对国会感到沮丧,认为国会未能行使其“钱袋子”权力,以保护自主科研经费免受行政权力的越界干预。
相关文章

原文

In The Nationalization of American Science I warned that the Trump administration’s rewriting of the seemingly mundane Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance was a tremendous threat to America’s historically successful decentralized system of science funding. Many others are now sounding the alarm.

It’s not surprising that organizations like the AAAS oppose the rule, albeit with unusually strongly worded dissents:

This latest move is a brazen power grab by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to buck the will of Congress and the American people and will make future discoveries less likely. If this rule becomes final, Americans’ hopes for future cures, national security and economic strength will rely on the scientific sensibilities of the nation’s chief bureaucrat. Alzheimer’s disease will not be cured by a budget analyst from either political party.

But we are now seeing strong pushback from independent thinkers such as:

Grayson Logue writing at The Dispatch:

A sweeping new rule proposed by the Trump administration could remake how that money is awarded and give the president and his political appointees discretion to cancel funding or target recipients for virtually any reason—with little opportunity for recourse.

White House officials argue the new rule is necessary to assert more accountability over federal grantmaking, but observers fear the shift will expand opportunities for politicization, abuse, and even corruption for an administration that has already demonstrated a penchant for using the levers of the federal government to punish partisan enemies and reward ideological allies. 

Dan Drezner:

if I was trying to ruin American leadership in scientific research this is pretty much the kind of rule I would write…One of the genuine difficulties with observing the second Trump term is that the assault on state capacity and impartiality has been so multipronged that it is difficult to keep track of everything going on. But these proposed rule changes are monumental and catastrophic.

and Noah Smith:

MAGA’s attack on science is even worse than it looks…despite science’s overwhelming popularity and public trust, Trump and his administration are launching an unprecedented and devastating attack on American science — cutting funding, and forcing science projects to undergo ideological review by government commissars.

It may be that the Trump administration has pushed too far, but my real worry is that we are losing an equilibrium. Science was never completely independent of politics, of course, but even at the worst of times, funding was decentralized and the culture-war material that dominated the headlines was never more than a tiny fraction of the whole. Like an independent judiciary, independent science has been an American virtue. COVID policy, gender policy, and now the Trump administration’s weaponization of these mistakes may have destroyed that equilibrium.

As I wrote in my original post, we are adopting the loser policies of authoritarian nations but those policies are the norm elsewhere for a reason. Centralized control of science is the default because it serves the people in power of whatever party. Decentralization is the fragile exception—a historically unusual achievement that is easier to destroy than rebuild.

Addendum: And here is Andrew Gelman.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com