Speaker 1: You're listening to Why we do what we do? Welcome
Speaker 1: to Why we do what we do. I am your
Speaker 1: extinct scientist host Abraham.
Speaker 2: And I'm your looking for another career host Shane.
Speaker 1: We are a psychology podcast. We talk about the things
Speaker 1: that humans and non human animals do, and today we're
Speaker 1: going to be talking about some terrible things that might
Speaker 1: happen to destroy science and our country. And so this
Speaker 1: is about how to kill science.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, So I think that this is going
Speaker 2: to be an important message for anybody who is working
Speaker 2: in a science field, working in a stemmed field, anything
Speaker 2: like that that goes well, science isn't political. Science doesn't
Speaker 2: care about politics, Yes it does, and we're going to
Speaker 2: talk about that because I think as a scientist you
Speaker 2: would be irresponse to ignore politics because it does impact
Speaker 2: so much of what we do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even if you believe science doesn't care about politics,
Speaker 1: the politics care about science and they're about the there
Speaker 1: are gonna be the ones about to pull the trigger,
Speaker 1: to swing the blade, to drop the trapdoor under the noose.
Speaker 1: Insert yes execution metaphor here, because that's where we're going.
Speaker 1: But if you're joining us for the first time, then
Speaker 1: welcome We hope you enjoy with you here in this discussion.
Speaker 1: We're not generally all doom and gloom. Generally, I think
Speaker 1: we're actually quite cheerful and fun. That's true, but we
Speaker 1: do have to face the realities of this world from
Speaker 1: time to time. If you are a returning person, then
Speaker 1: welcome back. I'm glad we didn't scare you away in
Speaker 1: the past. Maybe we will today. We're not trying to,
Speaker 1: but it could happen. Thank you for joining us either way,
Speaker 1: And if you'd like to support us, you can join
Speaker 1: us on Patreon, leave us a rating and a review,
Speaker 1: like subscribe, tell a friend, etc. I'll talk more about
Speaker 1: those at the end of this discussion. But this episode
Speaker 1: publishes in the middle of the year. We're now like,
Speaker 1: we're right in it. We're in the bell curve of
Speaker 1: the year, if you will.
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: It is June tenth, so happy ballpoint pen Day.
Speaker 2: Ooh. It is also Herbs and Spices Day.
Speaker 1: Like Herbs and Spices. It is too National black Cow Day.
Speaker 2: Yes it is. It's also and this makes sense, it's
Speaker 2: National Iced Tea Day. It's real hot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, seriously, it is America the Beautiful Week. Moving on,
Speaker 1: MM hmm.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a bedbug awareness week.
Speaker 1: I'm aware, all right. It is Meet a Mate Week. Cool.
Speaker 2: Oh, sure, go meet that mate, Meet a meat. It
Speaker 2: is National Automotive Service Professional Week, so happy Automotive Service
Speaker 2: Professional Week to my brother.
Speaker 1: Cool. National Body Piercing Week. Sweet.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right. It's National Frozen Yogurt Week.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, National Little League Baseball Week. That makes sense
Speaker 1: for the beginning of June. That.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's Pet Appreciation Week. I appreciate my pets.
Speaker 1: Same, yeah, I do it all year. It is shampoo week.
Speaker 1: We did a mini maybe our first mini on shampoo
Speaker 1: or it was like in the first couple.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I would say very early on. So I
Speaker 2: also do shampoo every week.
Speaker 1: Same, same, all right. But we are not here to
Speaker 1: just discuss holidays to just figure you know, you're here
Speaker 1: and you probably celebrate one of those holidays. That's not true,
Speaker 1: But in spirit of fun, we're just gonna list those
Speaker 1: things off so that you know, and you can wish
Speaker 1: somebody a happy National Black Cow Day on your way
Speaker 1: to work or something. Anyway. Yeah, we are talking about
Speaker 1: how to kill science. So let's jump in with our
Speaker 1: opening information that you need to have here. Which is
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is proposing a massive, sweeping overhaul
Speaker 1: to the system for federal grants and research. The claim
Speaker 1: of the recently released four hundred and twelve page proposal,
Speaker 1: The claim that they're making is that these changes will
Speaker 1: cut down un waste, fraud, and abuse. However, the document
Speaker 1: actually spells out a plan for the government to have
Speaker 1: complete control over scientific research and findings.
Speaker 2: That should be concerning. Yeah, obviously, like if you've listened
Speaker 2: to the show, then you know that we have a
Speaker 2: particular bias against this particular administration. However, you don't have
Speaker 2: to take our word for it. We're going to tell
Speaker 2: you exactly what it says based on objective, Like we're
Speaker 2: going to have quotes, we're going to have direct points,
Speaker 2: we're going to have It's not going to be like
Speaker 2: we hate this administration. It's gonna be like, no, this
Speaker 2: is what this actual document says. As scientists, we always
Speaker 2: try to be charitable, we always try to approach this
Speaker 2: from this space, and we're going to read those key
Speaker 2: sections from the proposal and comment on them because I
Speaker 2: think it's important to know what but exactly they're saying
Speaker 2: in this document that is publicly available to read.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is. Well, there's a link to this document
Speaker 1: in the notes, and there is also a way for
Speaker 1: the public to share their thoughts about this, and we're
Speaker 1: going to share ours, and I would encourage you listeners
Speaker 1: to share os as well. But first we need to
Speaker 1: get into a little background about what is all happening here,
Speaker 1: and that will, I think help set the context for
Speaker 1: why this matters and the significance of it. But is
Speaker 1: there anything that I'm missing that or you'd like to
Speaker 1: add before we jump into this discussion here.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think so. I think we got it.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the document in question we're describing here was
Speaker 1: published by the Office of Management and Budget or OMB,
Speaker 1: which is now as of twenty twenty five, headed by
Speaker 1: right wing Christian nationalist Russell Vatt, who was also the
Speaker 1: lead architect of the Heritage Foundation's Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: You may have remember hearing about this during the election
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four. This is a massive document that
Speaker 1: outlines the Conservative's plan to convert the United States into
Speaker 1: a dictatorship. And you think I'm being hyperbolic, and I
Speaker 1: am not. No, it essentially proposed that we make the
Speaker 1: Handmaid's Tail universe a real place and that that is
Speaker 1: here in the United States. Yeah, it is basically just that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And many of the many of the policies that
Speaker 2: have been implemented since the administration has taken control have
Speaker 2: aligned with the overall outcomes of Project twenty twenty five. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's all there in writing. It's plain sight, it's real bad.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's aggressively disquieting.
Speaker 2: Aggressively bad. Yeah. Yeah. So the Trump administration is a
Speaker 2: point in several politicians, corporate shills, TV personalities another aggressively
Speaker 2: underqualified lunatics to several key positions at the top of
Speaker 2: government agencies, including the National Institute of Health ANDIH, which
Speaker 2: oversees the distribution of funds for tens of thousands of
Speaker 2: research grants every year. And again, I know that that
Speaker 2: might sound aggressive, but doctor Oz is not qualified for
Speaker 2: the position he's in now. RFK is not qualified for
Speaker 2: the position that he's in now. Arguably Pambondi was not qualified.
Speaker 2: The people that are in his cabinet and in his
Speaker 2: administration are not qualified for the positions that they're in.
Speaker 1: Objectively, yeah, very much, objectively, like they don't have experience,
Speaker 1: they don't have education. They fired all of the people
Speaker 1: who are in charge of the vaccine panel and appointed
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists and like YouTube personalities, people with little education,
Speaker 1: no degrees, no experience. They were just from the supplement
Speaker 1: industry who wanted to push an anti vaccine agenda. They've
Speaker 1: have gutted the CDC. People have otherwise resigned from their
Speaker 1: positions because of the pressure they were facing to do
Speaker 1: super illegal, unethical stuff. So those are the kinds of
Speaker 1: people who currently head a lot of those departments.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Historically, the United States has been one of the largest
Speaker 1: and most profound leaders in scientific research and discovery in
Speaker 1: the last In fact, the economic rise of the United
Speaker 1: States and it's a set to being one of the
Speaker 1: most powerful countries in the world, is entirely correlated with
Speaker 1: and a result of the fact that the government started
Speaker 1: pouring enormous amounts of money into scientific research and making
Speaker 1: a real commitment to science as a process.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I just read this book Following to Earth,
Speaker 2: and it was about the space program, the moon landing
Speaker 2: programs and all that, and the polo programs, And one
Speaker 2: of the things that was a recurring theme was that
Speaker 2: during certain administrations, the funding kept getting cut, so they
Speaker 2: were having to figure out new ways to be able
Speaker 2: to achieve the research they were trying to do while
Speaker 2: funding was being cut for scientific aeronautical research. And wouldn't
Speaker 2: you know it that the administration that was doing all
Speaker 2: the cutting was a Republican conservative administration. And he makes
Speaker 2: that abundantly clear in that book while he's working on
Speaker 2: these programs. So importantly, politicians at the time also understood,
Speaker 2: and it's not the Space program, but kind of what
Speaker 2: we're at now. Politicians understood that the best people to
Speaker 2: facilitate the distribution of resources to scientific endeavors and to
Speaker 2: regulate the quality of those studies where people who are
Speaker 2: experts in the subject matter. That's a lot of where
Speaker 2: the kind of grant program started in these scientific programs began.
Speaker 2: What that means is experts in medicine reviewed research proposals
Speaker 2: for medicine medical research. People who are experts in law
Speaker 2: enforcement reviewed and supported research proposals around law enforcement. People
Speaker 2: who are experts in energy production review and support research
Speaker 2: and energy production. So people who are experts in psychology
Speaker 2: review and support proposals for psychological research, et cetera, et
Speaker 2: cetera et cetera. People who are in the field of
Speaker 2: the people who are reviewing, who are making decisions, who
Speaker 2: are issuing the grants, those types of things, like people
Speaker 2: who know the actual science and subject of what they're reviewing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they are experienced, they are educated, They are often
Speaker 1: researchers themselves. They have been doing the work, so they
Speaker 1: understand the kinds of things that make the most sense
Speaker 1: and with things don't make sense, and how to support
Speaker 1: further advancement. And that has been, if not the reason
Speaker 1: science has been so successful in this country, and historically
Speaker 1: it is at least one of the most important reasons,
Speaker 1: right that this has worked. Because it's not just enough
Speaker 1: to pour a bunch of money into science, as we'll
Speaker 1: actually see in a second, it is that that science
Speaker 1: needs to be independently governed by the scientists.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: They are the ones who monitor and track these because
Speaker 1: they know what they're doing. The other important thing about this,
Speaker 1: and the reason I just mentioned as being independent, is
Speaker 1: that these experts are not subject to or influenced by
Speaker 1: the government. Obviously, people have political leanings and whatnot, but
Speaker 1: the government can't just come in and tell these people
Speaker 1: what to do about grants and research and science and
Speaker 1: that sort of thing or else as a risk that
Speaker 1: the government could also control the narrative about what research
Speaker 1: has to say and say instead what the government wants
Speaker 1: it to say. And the importance of this really could
Speaker 1: not be overstated. Other countries have done this, they've taken
Speaker 1: control of the scientific narrative. You have such scientific strongholds
Speaker 1: as I ran Russia, Germany in the nineteen forties, and
Speaker 1: North Korea. I call those scientific strongholds facetiously because those
Speaker 1: are not scientific strongholds. These are places where they quashed, quelled,
Speaker 1: and destroyed people's research if it didn't align with the
Speaker 1: government's policies or their government's ideas about what they want
Speaker 1: the truth to be about things. And we've also seen
Speaker 1: what happens when authoritarian and communist governments try to control
Speaker 1: the narrative of scientific research. Chernobyl is one example. The
Speaker 1: government had a specific agenda. It didn't want to accept
Speaker 1: certain truths and realities about what was going on, and
Speaker 1: so instead of doing the right thing, they caused a
Speaker 1: giant meltdown that could play destroyed the landscape and killed
Speaker 1: tons of people. Yep, that's what happens when the government
Speaker 1: makes decisions about things that are science based instead of scientists.
Speaker 1: But scientific research becomes essentially nothing when you depend on
Speaker 1: politicians to try and be in control of these systems.
Speaker 1: It's untrustworthy, it's ignored by the rest of the world,
Speaker 1: and is a giant waste of time, effort, and money.
Speaker 1: Kind of like ads, Okay, we're back. We've been describing
Speaker 1: essentially the way to have science work and be effective
Speaker 1: and facilitate a country to be a flourishing nation.
Speaker 2: Yes, so at this point, you know, we've been kind
Speaker 2: of talking about, like, you know, the problem with government
Speaker 2: control over science, and we've seen those examples and really
Speaker 2: what it is yielded, which is not great results. The
Speaker 2: point is, the smart decision was and always has been
Speaker 2: to put experts in charge of helping to drive innovation
Speaker 2: forward in their respective fields. You need experts in the
Speaker 2: field to know the field well enough to make decisions
Speaker 2: and being scientifically literate about the field to be able
Speaker 2: to make decisions about where that research could or should
Speaker 2: or maybe would benefit from going. This has worked extremely well,
Speaker 2: probably better than they could have even predicted, because scientists
Speaker 2: know what they are doing and politicians are stupid at
Speaker 2: best at best to be charitable. Yeah, they're not smart
Speaker 2: people in terms of at least these respective fields, and
Speaker 2: like this expertise, that's not where they're experts. They're experts
Speaker 2: in policy and maybe backchannel deal baking, but certainly not
Speaker 2: the science part of it. So now, of course, conservative
Speaker 2: politicians set a whole new low when it comes to stupid,
Speaker 2: and Christian nationalism represents the kind of stupid that didn't
Speaker 2: seem possible for human beings. We digress again, so let's
Speaker 2: get back on track.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the Trump administration had been appointing all of
Speaker 1: these shills and figureheads to these positions where they're going
Speaker 1: to do the government's bidding, but the courts were blocking
Speaker 1: their ability to curtail and control math the narrative of
Speaker 1: scientific research. And so this proposal we're discussing today, by
Speaker 1: the OMB, this was developed to rewrite government policy about
Speaker 1: funding scientific research. So for the next section of this discussion,
Speaker 1: a lot of what we're going to be doing is
Speaker 1: quoting news sources directly and the proposal itself directly, and
Speaker 1: commenting on what these people are saying about what is
Speaker 1: going on here. And this doesn't follow any particular order,
Speaker 1: it's just sort of highlights about what's in this. As
Speaker 1: we mentioned, it's four hundred and twelve pages, so it's
Speaker 1: quite long. We're not going to read the whole thing
Speaker 1: to you because that would turn this into a thirty
Speaker 1: hour podcast, but we will get into some of the
Speaker 1: key chunks that we need to discuss.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I mean, let's go and start with this
Speaker 2: first ballpoint, and I'm going to read this directly. So
Speaker 2: this is a direct quote. The Office of Management and
Speaker 2: Budget's omb proposed rule is in escalation of the administration's
Speaker 2: relentless attacks on independent science. This is a quote from
Speaker 2: Jewels Barbody Dashes of the Center for Science and Democracy
Speaker 2: at the Union of Concerned Scientists in a statement that
Speaker 2: they put out. And then it goes further. It says,
Speaker 2: quote it replaces scientific merit with a political loyalty test
Speaker 2: and could be used to silence research that is politically
Speaker 2: inconvenient for the administration. End quote. Now Barbodi a Daches
Speaker 2: actually warns that the proposal would quote give politically connected
Speaker 2: industries a functional veto over research that might reveal risks
Speaker 2: associated with products and practices. End quote. You know when
Speaker 2: I read that, and you kind of hear that, my
Speaker 2: first thought is, oh, like this is where data centers
Speaker 2: are going to be a real problem, because if they
Speaker 2: are creating a substantial amount of pollution in certain communities
Speaker 2: and they have to do water research about whether polluted
Speaker 2: water from data centers is creating diseases in these communities
Speaker 2: or something like that, like that research could be kiboshed.
Speaker 2: It could be immediately shut down because it doesn't benefit
Speaker 2: when data centers are making money for the government or
Speaker 2: something along those lines, so or for you know, people
Speaker 2: in those spaces. So like I could see that being
Speaker 2: an example of like, oh, there's a health risk going on,
Speaker 2: it doesn't benefit the government or the government's values per se,
Speaker 2: and we're gonna go ahead and we're not going to
Speaker 2: approve that research because it doesn't align with our goals.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I'm realizing now that I've sort of jumped
Speaker 1: ahead a little bit by starting with the criticism here,
Speaker 1: let's actually describe fairly clearly what the proposal is as
Speaker 1: part of this. Yeah, So one of the features of
Speaker 1: the new proposal is that they want to end international
Speaker 1: research collaboration.
Speaker 2: Which is insane, Like that's insane. We are a.
Speaker 1: Global community at this point, Like, yes, we have individual countries,
Speaker 1: but everything that we do affects everybody else in the world,
Speaker 1: and vice versa. The things that they do affect us.
Speaker 1: There are not issues really that are so geographically bound
Speaker 1: that they don't apply to other places in the world.
Speaker 1: So international research collaboration is just a thing that you
Speaker 1: need to do or else what are you doing? So
Speaker 1: with the current rules, they want to essentially end that
Speaker 1: their sort of policy is domestic first, which who knows
Speaker 1: what that even means, right, Like basically you have to
Speaker 1: say just America thirty times in your proposal, and they
Speaker 1: for them to even consider it. They do say they'll
Speaker 1: consider in an international collaboration on a case by case basis,
Speaker 1: but it's really going to be does it support the
Speaker 1: agenda of the president and the current administration whether or
Speaker 1: not that that collaboration would be even considered. So they
Speaker 1: really want to stop that, which, by the way, like
Speaker 1: this is long standing scientific practice is to do international
Speaker 1: collaboration because that is the best way to move forward,
Speaker 1: is to get as many people involved as possible and
Speaker 1: sort of share knowledge.
Speaker 2: Right, Okay.
Speaker 1: Another thing that they want to cut here is scientists
Speaker 1: generally can use part of the funding that they get
Speaker 1: from grants to pay for a time conferences. So most
Speaker 1: scientists work at academic institutions, maybe not most, A lot
Speaker 1: of scientists who are doing research work at academic institutions
Speaker 1: where they apply for federal grants. There are also private
Speaker 1: companies who have scientists who also apply for and receive
Speaker 1: federal grants. There's like a lot of different ways that
Speaker 1: grants get distributed to various scientific entities. But the point
Speaker 1: is the conferences represent an opportunity for scientists to show up,
Speaker 1: present their work to each other and learn new things
Speaker 1: and continue to disseminate and advance the field. A lot
Speaker 1: of conference attendants is paid for by institutions from grant
Speaker 1: funding specifically, and that includes funding students to go to
Speaker 1: these conferences. Well, they would like to essentially cut completely
Speaker 1: any funding that could be used to go to spend
Speaker 1: on going to conferences. It would only be allowed if
Speaker 1: participation in the event was expressly approved by the funding
Speaker 1: agency and written into the grant, regardless of whether the
Speaker 1: conference was a noun after the point where they could
Speaker 1: have asked for that funding to go to that. So
Speaker 1: it does not consider anything like that Because when people
Speaker 1: write grants and the funds for grants, they have to
Speaker 1: set aside how those funds are going to be used,
Speaker 1: and things like continuing education and research are part of
Speaker 1: what they have to write. So they're basically saying you
Speaker 1: can't do that anymore.
Speaker 2: And then something that we don't spend enough time talking
Speaker 2: about is that conferences are one of the best ways
Speaker 2: to disseminate new research and information and like bite sized chunks. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and fast and fast. I mean you can get a
Speaker 2: lot you know. I know, you just got back from
Speaker 2: a conference. I go to conferences all the time. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and between the two of us, I'm sure we go
Speaker 2: to hundreds of conferences constantly. But when we think about that,
Speaker 2: like every one of the hours that you're there is
Speaker 2: an opportunity to learn some new science, right. And so
Speaker 2: so if I'm on a research grant, I'm going to
Speaker 2: go to a conference that is related to my research
Speaker 2: grant that is going to offer me different insights about
Speaker 2: the particular subject that I'm looking at or I'm interested in.
Speaker 2: And now you have basically cut off a space where
Speaker 2: information can low freely. That's essentially what this is saying
Speaker 2: is like, no, you can't go to that at least
Speaker 2: under this grant, so pay for it out of your
Speaker 2: own pocket, which is sometimes not affordable, and you can
Speaker 2: go you can go this conference. But they're basically saying, no,
Speaker 2: you can't go to those anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, conferences are extremely expensive to put on, extremely expensive,
Speaker 1: Like you would not even believe how expensive they are,
Speaker 1: and they do not tend to make a very significant
Speaker 1: profit from people attending those conferences, so they often charge
Speaker 1: hundreds of dollars sometimes for attendance from professionals. Now often
Speaker 1: students get an express discount, and like people who are
Speaker 1: maybe like sustained members, I don't know. There's like various
Speaker 1: ways to tier the membership system to try and facilitate
Speaker 1: people who have fewer resources available. But part of the
Speaker 1: reason that they can exist is because they kind of
Speaker 1: subsidize those lower tiers by charging higher prices to people
Speaker 1: who have grant funding that can help pay for those conferences.
Speaker 1: So all of that ensures that that dissemination can continue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, most definitely, they're trying to not just cut this.
Speaker 1: Off at the knees. They were trying to set it
Speaker 1: on fire and throw in the trash, like it would
Speaker 1: just does not exist any longer. This would greatly greatly
Speaker 1: affect professional conferences. And importantly, when these conferences happen, they
Speaker 1: usually set up in a city and they usually rent
Speaker 1: a conference or they like get conference space. They set
Speaker 1: up a hotel block, there's rental cars, there's flights the amount,
Speaker 1: and then thousands and thousands of people show up to
Speaker 1: this thing and they bring with them money, Like they
Speaker 1: go to this place and they buy dinner, they buy food,
Speaker 1: they go sight seeing, and they're paid for hotel rooms,
Speaker 1: they're paying taxes in this city. So cutting off a
Speaker 1: funding source for going to these not only hurts the conference,
Speaker 1: it also hurts the cities that would have held that
Speaker 1: conference and all the travel industry and tourism industry that
Speaker 1: would have supported the people who go to that conference
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 1: So it is basically just taking the economy and shoving
Speaker 1: a knife in its gut and being like take that.
Speaker 2: Hah, yeah, it's absurd.
Speaker 1: And with that, I say, insert ad into this podcast.
Speaker 2: Take that.
Speaker 1: Ha, Okay, we're back. We've been talking about the conference.
Speaker 1: That's a very small part of this. But the fact
Speaker 1: that they're trying to essentially end conferences or cut them
Speaker 1: down to extremely bare bones. The overall rules for overhead
Speaker 1: cost rates for research grants would not change in this
Speaker 1: particular situation. So we have to really quickly describe grant structure,
Speaker 1: which sounds really boring, but I can summarize it, I
Speaker 1: think fairly cohesively. So understand that like a lot of
Speaker 1: the scientists who applied for these are at universities of
Speaker 1: some kind, private, public, whatever. They're at universities, and the
Speaker 1: university has to pay that researchers, that scientists salary. They
Speaker 1: often have to set them up with the lab. They
Speaker 1: have to pay for their internet and their equipment and
Speaker 1: their desks, and like, they have to pay a lot
Speaker 1: of money to keep a researcher and a research team
Speaker 1: in their space. So when a researcher brings in grants,
Speaker 1: then the university takes a percentage of that grant to
Speaker 1: help offset the cost that they've invested in having that
Speaker 1: person there doing research in the first place. It's called
Speaker 1: an indirect cost. Okay, you take a place like you
Speaker 1: and R A common indirect cost you'll see is about
Speaker 1: thirty percent. So if they get a one million dollar
Speaker 1: grant for something, the university is going to take approximately
Speaker 1: three hundred thousand dollars of that grant to cover the
Speaker 1: cost of paying for that researcher and their research space
Speaker 1: and equipment and everything to be there. Right, it sounds
Speaker 1: like a lot and it is, but you know they
Speaker 1: still then have seven hundred thousand dollars to do what
Speaker 1: and that's they plan for that, Like they budget for
Speaker 1: We're going to apply for this grant knowing this is
Speaker 1: how much of that money we will get that we
Speaker 1: will then spend on these things, and they write they
Speaker 1: plan that all out, and that's called the indirect cost.
Speaker 1: Some universities have in direct costs as high as seventy percent.
Speaker 1: That does feel extreme to me, But you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know what their actual operating overhead costs are, Like
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're massive.
Speaker 2: Well, and it probably depends on the research it very much,
Speaker 2: does you know, Like it depends on the equipment that's needed.
Speaker 2: Like you know, there's a different like like we kind
Speaker 2: of talk, we come from a behavior analysis standpoint where
Speaker 2: it's like we need to have like maybe rat cages
Speaker 2: and stuff like that sometimes if we're doing a rat lab,
Speaker 2: but like we don't work in a space where we
Speaker 2: need a telescope that can see planets in other solar systems, right,
Speaker 2: So like that's a very different cost set.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Or like if you need a lab with a
Speaker 1: lot of chemicals, you need a ton of safety equipment
Speaker 1: and protocols and emergency things. It's going to be so
Speaker 1: expensive to operate a lab for chemists then for baby analysts,
Speaker 1: and so the expense to the university is much much higher.
Speaker 1: So they're probably going to claim a higher indirect cost.
Speaker 1: So it varies I think by grant by funding source
Speaker 1: a little bit. But there's gonna be like university policy
Speaker 1: around this as well. Yeah, last year they tried to
Speaker 1: cap indirect costs at fifteen percent. This would murder many
Speaker 1: universities ability to fund scientists on the campus if they
Speaker 1: did that. That part failed, and they're not including that
Speaker 1: exact thing in this next round of this. What they
Speaker 1: are calling on is for favoring distributing grants to institutions
Speaker 1: that have lower indirect costs, and for prohibiting money going
Speaker 1: to publication costs, which I'll come back to that a second.
Speaker 1: And less such costs this is a direct quote from
Speaker 1: the document, and less such costs are expressly required by
Speaker 1: statute or approved in advanced by the federal agency on
Speaker 1: a case by case basis. That's another important part we
Speaker 1: need to get to. So one quick thing. These grants
Speaker 1: are largely funded by tax dollars, pretty much entirely funded
Speaker 1: by tax dollars, and so when this research happens, a
Speaker 1: lot of people have argued, if our tax dollars paid
Speaker 1: for this, this should be made publicly available. The problem
Speaker 1: is the sources that publish that research also have to
Speaker 1: pay for their costs, and so they will often not
Speaker 1: make research publicly available. And that's kind of the deal.
Speaker 1: They're like, you publish your research here, we want your
Speaker 1: research here, and then people who buy subscriptions to our
Speaker 1: journal can have access to that research, or people can
Speaker 1: buy these articles directly for sometimes hundreds of dollars. Well,
Speaker 1: what a grant can do is have costs from the
Speaker 1: funding of the grant that go to pay the publication
Speaker 1: for that so it becomes an open access article and
Speaker 1: anybody can read it. I do think in an ideal world,
Speaker 1: tax funded research should be always publicly available. And I
Speaker 1: understand the complicated nuance of having private publishing companies who
Speaker 1: have to make sure that they can cover their overhead,
Speaker 1: but that's just a thing to make sure that you know,
Speaker 1: is there what this would do. This is largely going
Speaker 1: to punish ivy leagues and like large institutions. That's one
Speaker 1: of the effects. But that also means it's going to
Speaker 1: go to universities that have lower indirect costs. Why do
Speaker 1: they have lower indirect costs? Probably because they don't have
Speaker 1: as much stuff that they that they can provide to
Speaker 1: the researchers. They don't have to pay for us, right,
Speaker 1: so they don't have state of the art equipments, they
Speaker 1: don't have cutting edge technology. They're like operating off of
Speaker 1: like Windows ninety five Dell PC that that takes up
Speaker 1: an entire closet, you.
Speaker 2: Know, right, and honestly, like what that does is at
Speaker 2: first you might be going, well, why does research need
Speaker 2: the state of the art equipment? Because we need to
Speaker 2: be as current as possible with our research, and at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, like having less quality equipment
Speaker 2: or less access to equipment or any of that stuff
Speaker 2: is going to reduce the quality of the research at large,
Speaker 2: or it's going to prevent the research from happening at all,
Speaker 2: which is a different problem, exactly right, exactly, So the
Speaker 2: proposal from the OMB also aims to replace the peer
Speaker 2: review process with the judgment of non expert political appointees
Speaker 2: sworn to carry out the wishes of President Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I say that sentence, and I cannot believe that it
Speaker 2: is a real sentence that I had to say out loud. Yeah,
Speaker 2: we did an episode on peer review, and we explicitly say, like,
Speaker 2: is it the best process that we could possibly have?
Speaker 2: Absolutely not, but it is certainly better than having non
Speaker 2: experts political appointees who have a particular political agenda reviewing research.
Speaker 2: That is I mean, that is Orwellian.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to put it nicely, Yeah, And that's what I
Speaker 1: was saying in terms of we need to come back
Speaker 1: to what they mean by on a case by case
Speaker 1: basis is that they're now saying like, no longer does
Speaker 1: peer review matter, like at all, it doesn't matter. Essentially,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen is all of these grants get
Speaker 1: signed off by a political appointee and just as you said,
Speaker 1: their job description is do what the president tells you
Speaker 1: to do with research, right, that means they're only going
Speaker 1: to fund research that look looks like it carries out
Speaker 1: the agenda of the current political administration, that looks like
Speaker 1: it's going to shine that administration in a positive light,
Speaker 1: and that has a narrative that is in line with
Speaker 1: what the administration is trying to push as a narrative,
Speaker 1: and that these political appointees who are not experts at all,
Speaker 1: Like they're explicitly not choosing experts for this role. They
Speaker 1: are choosing people who are politicians, very stupid politicians, maybe
Speaker 1: not even politicians, but like personalities, corporate shills, people who
Speaker 1: have a vested interest in carrying out their agenda and
Speaker 1: do not know a fucking thing about science. Yeah, those
Speaker 1: the people who will be making decisions about research dollars
Speaker 1: and research proposals.
Speaker 2: It's a group of people who rules against conflicts of
Speaker 2: interests have being written about the reason we prevent conflicts
Speaker 2: of interest in research are because of people like this
Speaker 2: they're talking about bringing in, Yes, like, you do not
Speaker 2: want Andrew Wakefield being the responsible person for reviewing vaccine research,
Speaker 2: absolutely not God, and that's what he's doing. That's what
Speaker 2: he's doing. You do not want doctor Oz being the
Speaker 2: quote unquote peer reviewer for herbal vitamin supplements that treat cancer,
Speaker 2: like that he's gonna approve it because he has a
Speaker 2: vested interest in that industry.
Speaker 1: Right exactly, these people who don't know what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and all this creates is a way for the government
Speaker 1: to have complete control over what the outcomes of scientific
Speaker 1: research look like. Another direct quote here, This is from
Speaker 1: somebody describing this. Her name is Elizabeth Genexi Genexy. What
Speaker 1: she says is, quote, what OMB is proposing is not
Speaker 1: a reform of grants management. It is a complete political
Speaker 1: control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science
Speaker 1: funding life cycle. And this was a former NIH program
Speaker 1: official who had read the rules and was providing an
Speaker 1: analysis of what this was. Because they're claiming that they're
Speaker 1: reforming grant management, that's not what they're doing. What they're
Speaker 1: doing is completely eliminating the structure of science that guided
Speaker 1: this process and replacing it with a presidential agenda driven
Speaker 1: apparatus that is no longer science. It is a propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: Yes, and that should be very concerning to everybody who
Speaker 2: hears this. Now there are other quotes. Another quote that
Speaker 2: came out was that a lot of grant decisions are
Speaker 2: based on the knowledge of experts in a field in
Speaker 2: a particular field, so grant decisions are reviewed by people
Speaker 2: in the field who make decisions about that. I just
Speaker 2: got done reviewing like seven grants from a university. Like
Speaker 2: I got to do some grant reviews. And the reason
Speaker 2: I was asked to do grant reviews is because I'm
Speaker 2: a behavior analyst reviewing behavior analytic grants. That makes sense,
Speaker 2: So like I'm an expert in a field of behavior
Speaker 2: analysis who is doing grant reviews. Grant reviews are supposed
Speaker 2: to be from the experts, not in a situation, and
Speaker 2: they should not be reviewed based on whether it meets
Speaker 2: an ideological agenda. Merit reviews are all about making sure
Speaker 2: that the research and the grants and the proposals meet
Speaker 2: the rigor and standards of the science, replacing it with
Speaker 2: a decision making model that is primarily politically idealized, it
Speaker 2: follows a certain ideology. It's going to result in really bad,
Speaker 2: really bad studies, really poorly designed studies, bad science, fake
Speaker 2: science being refunded, being researched, and being published as truth.
Speaker 2: It's going to create a body of literature that is
Speaker 2: not replicable, that is not verifiable, that is wasting money
Speaker 2: and time on stuff that we already know doesn't work,
Speaker 2: Like facilitated communication, like the fact that vaccines cause autism,
Speaker 2: which they don't. We know all those things do not work.
Speaker 2: But this is just going to outcate money and waste
Speaker 2: time and resources for research. It's going to be bad
Speaker 2: science exactly.
Speaker 1: And the great irony of the people who are in
Speaker 1: charge saying that everything should be a meritocracy, that everything
Speaker 1: should be merit based, is they are exactly destroying a
Speaker 1: merit based system, right they say merit based, and what
Speaker 1: they advocate is nepotism and loyalty. Merit is not factor
Speaker 1: in whatsoever and the things that they do not at all. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and merit does not factor into our choice to run ads. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're back. We've been talking about this fact that one
Speaker 1: of the major changes is shifting the decision making apparatus
Speaker 1: to political appointees who are selected explicitly and expressly to
Speaker 1: carry out the agenda of the president. Senior appointees at
Speaker 1: federal agencies would be the ones to actually sign off
Speaker 1: on the awards and would ban collaboration with foreign researchers.
Speaker 1: They would cut federal support for publication of those studies
Speaker 1: when they're done. They are explicitly not going to fund
Speaker 1: anything that has certain verbiag in it that they don't like.
Speaker 1: If it says things like diversity, they would pretty much
Speaker 1: outright reject it. Says anything about equity, it would outright
Speaker 1: reject it. They made a list of words that you're
Speaker 1: not supposed to use, including women and women. Why you're
Speaker 1: just not supposed to say those words. You are limited
Speaker 1: in whether or not you can say anything about race whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And they're only going to allow it if it conveys
Speaker 1: the narrative that they want to tell. Like you might
Speaker 1: start seeing a bunch of research that says, oh, racism
Speaker 1: isn't real and never was real, and that's not even
Speaker 1: a thing, and like that would be something that they
Speaker 1: would okay to be published because that's in line with
Speaker 1: the narrative they're trying to spin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you would hope, you know, I was thinking
Speaker 2: about this, and you know, you would hope that scientists
Speaker 2: with integrity would never publish research that was so harmful.
Speaker 2: But then you have people like Jordan Peterson who would
Speaker 2: publish stuff like this, yeah, and is not a reputable
Speaker 2: scientist and walks around pretending to be a scientist. And
Speaker 2: that's who these grants are going to go to. Yes,
Speaker 2: is these grants are going to go to people like
Speaker 2: Jordan Peterson and doctor Oz.
Speaker 1: Yeah, psychopaths who who have an agenda and don't know
Speaker 1: what they're doing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. The other important part of this regulation that
Speaker 2: we're talking about is that over the last several years,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has put out some executive orders that are
Speaker 2: pretty just awful and dumb and just absolutely fit the
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five agenda. This proposal would actually give
Speaker 2: legal weight to some of those executive orders, because something
Speaker 2: that people don't talk about enough is that a lot
Speaker 2: of his executive orders are being shut down because they're
Speaker 2: not legal. Right, So, like an executive order doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that it immediately applies. It means that it applies for
Speaker 2: a period of time until it gets challenged in court
Speaker 2: and then somebody goes, oh, by the way, you can't
Speaker 2: call it the Trump Kennedy Center because you don't have
Speaker 2: that executive authority, you see, an idiot. Right. Courts are
Speaker 2: doing that a lot more than people realize. So Donald
Speaker 2: Trump is losing time after time in courts. But if
Speaker 2: this proposal, this regulation, this proposed regulation is accepted and
Speaker 2: is codified and goes in the law as promulgated or
Speaker 2: whatever terms you want to use. It gives weight to
Speaker 2: a lot of the executive orders that he put out
Speaker 2: last year that banned research on diversity, equity, and inclusivity. Right,
Speaker 2: So going back to what you were just saying, you
Speaker 2: can't say those words, and now there's a legal precedent
Speaker 2: to back that up. If this proposed regulation goes through,
Speaker 2: it provides tighter oversight by political appointees, not peer reviewers,
Speaker 2: not researchers, political appointees, and they will actually prevent research
Speaker 2: agencies from this is a direct quote from quote promoting
Speaker 2: a woke policy agenda that did not reflect the values
Speaker 2: of the vast majority of the American public end quote.
Speaker 2: Get about that is so it's so ridicult, it's so absurd,
Speaker 2: But this is what they're putting into law or trying to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's essentially. I think the thing to really
Speaker 1: understand about this is the sort of major aspects of this,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot. There's a lot in this proposal.
Speaker 1: There's one more thing that I want to address, because
Speaker 1: we've mentioned this indirect cost cap that they sort of
Speaker 1: have potentially said that like we're going to make sure
Speaker 1: this goes to universities with lower and direct costs, and
Speaker 1: some people scientists are kind of like, oh, that could
Speaker 1: actually be a good thing. And the thing is, like,
Speaker 1: as you said, as we've mentioned, the grant system I
Speaker 1: think is not perfect. I do think there are ways
Speaker 1: that it could be improved to ensure that the way
Speaker 1: money is spent makes sense. I do think that grant writers, generally,
Speaker 1: the ones that I have met at least, are very responsible,
Speaker 1: very thoughtful, intelligent people who are doing their best to
Speaker 1: use those funds in a very responsible way right And
Speaker 1: where things go wrong it is because of other things
Speaker 1: that get in the way of that. And I understand
Speaker 1: the need to have like some consideration around percentages on this,
Speaker 1: and that it's possible there are some universities who abuse
Speaker 1: that to some extent. Some scientists are also aware of
Speaker 1: the fact that, like, it does feel icky sometimes to
Speaker 1: like get a super large grant and have almost all
Speaker 1: of that grant go to the university and then you're
Speaker 1: left with very little to actually do your research. And
Speaker 1: so they could be seen that and be like, well,
Speaker 1: that could be a good thing. Don't let the silver
Speaker 1: lining of this undercut the massive significance of us throwing
Speaker 1: away science and just digging a shallow grave for it
Speaker 1: and throwing it in, right, because like this proposal would
Speaker 1: significantly disrupt any scientific research, Like there would be little
Speaker 1: and what little existed would suck. It would be so
Speaker 1: it would be useless. They would be ignored by the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. Right So, and would be easily disprovable.
Speaker 1: Although you wouldn't be able to do that research in
Speaker 1: the United States. I think understanding that just because there's
Speaker 1: one thing in here that might kind of help make
Speaker 1: sense a little bit, it's not worth it. It's like
Speaker 1: throwing a cherry into a pile of diarrhea. I'm like,
Speaker 1: just because there's a cherry, and it doesn't mean I'm
Speaker 1: gonna eat that pile of diarrhea. Like it's still a
Speaker 1: pile of diarrhea. Yeah, it also happens to have a
Speaker 1: cherry in it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. This is a dark ages indicator. Yeah, this type
Speaker 2: of rhetoric, this type of belief around like dismantling systems
Speaker 2: of science. It's a dark age is indicator, like we
Speaker 2: are well on our way if we're not already like
Speaker 2: well in it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is kind of where we're going. So there
Speaker 1: is something I think that I want to get into
Speaker 1: really quick just understanding a little bit about government structure
Speaker 1: and what that all means, because we sort of alluded
Speaker 1: to this before. I'm going to describe a type of
Speaker 1: government and see if you can figure out which one
Speaker 1: it is. This is a government that is controlled by
Speaker 1: a single party, with state controlled command economy and the
Speaker 1: suppression of political dis Individual freedoms are limited, and the
Speaker 1: government controls things like manufacturing and production by having ownership
Speaker 1: in those processes those types of entities. And the government
Speaker 1: also controls the flow of information in the narrative. They
Speaker 1: suppress any discussion in the news and research, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And they criticize and silence critics, stripping them of funding,
Speaker 1: imprisoning them, deporting them if they can. That's a kind
Speaker 1: of government that exists. What kind of government is that?
Speaker 2: Hmmmm, good question. Is it one where the leader goes
Speaker 2: by big brother?
Speaker 1: That is a form that this can take.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean, if this sounds like authoritarianism, you're right.
Speaker 2: I mean, if this sounds like communism, you're also right.
Speaker 2: In practice, these forms of government are basically the same.
Speaker 2: Our government is turning into this. Historically, the government has
Speaker 2: influenced the private sector through policy, regulation, subsidies, and bailouts.
Speaker 2: But now the government has an eight point nine billion
Speaker 2: dollar stake in Intel, a fifteen percent stake in Navidia,
Speaker 2: a four hundred million dollar stake in a rare earth
Speaker 2: mining company, and government board representatives in Nippon Steel. This
Speaker 2: is communism. This is authoritarianism headed by a cognitively impaired,
Speaker 2: murderous megalomaniac. We are, for lack of a better term,
Speaker 2: because of Trump, and definitely because of the people who
Speaker 2: want him empower and who are using him. I mean,
Speaker 2: you could make the argument that he is a monster
Speaker 2: in his own right, and he absolutely is, but there
Speaker 2: are also monsters who may be worse, who are hiding
Speaker 2: in the shadows, who are absolutely using him for their
Speaker 2: own gain as well. So like, and they're all people
Speaker 2: who hate science, especially science that helps people. All they
Speaker 2: care about is money, power and authority, and under this administration,
Speaker 2: that's what they're getting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, for the people on the right who
Speaker 1: say they hate communism, this is communism. Our government now
Speaker 1: owns private equity in private companies and therefore has some
Speaker 1: controlling interest in what they do. That's what communism does
Speaker 1: the government is appointing political appointees to control the flow
Speaker 1: of information. That is both authoritarianism and communism. They are
Speaker 1: suppressing individual freedoms and suppressing discussion and limiting dissent, criticizing
Speaker 1: and silencing critics, disappearing people. That is authoritarianism and communism.
Speaker 1: More authoritarism than the communism, but they both do it.
Speaker 1: Like that's where we're currently at, Like is we are
Speaker 1: headed in that way? And I kind of want to
Speaker 1: end with like, this is what happens when Republicans get control.
Speaker 1: There's only been a handful of times in the history
Speaker 1: of this country. I was looking at like sort of
Speaker 1: a political map when the Republicans had control over all
Speaker 1: three bodies of government, the executive branch, the legislative branch,
Speaker 1: and the judicial branch. The cut Republicans controlled the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives, they control the Senate, they control the Presidency,
Speaker 1: they control the Supreme Court. They have complete control. And
Speaker 1: this is what happens when they get in control. They
Speaker 1: turn the government into a dictatorship, some revolting hybrid of
Speaker 1: fascism and communism, and so so so many scientists are
Speaker 1: going to lose their jobs should this policy come to
Speaker 1: pass because they will no longer be able to operate
Speaker 1: and do the work that they've been doing unless they
Speaker 1: are doing the bidding of the president. And that should
Speaker 1: be extremely alarming, like upsettingly extremely alarming. H this should
Speaker 1: just not be a thing that could possibly happen here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's absurd. It's like watching the movie Idiocracy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but like at the very least, like this is so
Speaker 2: much worse because it's happening in real time and it's
Speaker 2: you just just the monsters are exposed over and over
Speaker 2: and over again. It's just it's really unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Ads are like watching Idiocracy. Okay, we're back, we've been
Speaker 1: I guess, concluding our sort of thoughts here on this
Speaker 1: new proposal on what's going on here. Yeah, I cannot
Speaker 1: being believed something like this could possibly happen in this
Speaker 1: country in my lifetime. I can't believe it that we're here.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that some whole, useless, pathetic for brains,
Speaker 1: derelic waste of life have risen to the point where
Speaker 1: they could successfully pull this off. Just reflecting on this,
Speaker 1: looking over this, like, I can't believe that the American
Speaker 1: people are so fkingullible and uninformed and misinformed that we
Speaker 1: would not only let this happen, but actively fking choose it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's where we're looking at right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's infuriating.
Speaker 1: It is unbelievable that we could be at this place
Speaker 1: right now. Holy you guys, what the is going on?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I want to be careful to understand that, like most
Speaker 1: people do not agree with this, but we got enough
Speaker 1: people to agree with this to get us here in
Speaker 1: the first place. And to those people, this is on
Speaker 1: your shoulders.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, at this point in time, we've
Speaker 2: already lost our status in the world stage as a
Speaker 2: research powerhouse or as a place where we could be
Speaker 2: a beacon of some kind of knowledge in the world.
Speaker 2: We've lost that and are likely to only fall further
Speaker 2: due to the incomprehensibly stupid decisions of this administration. And
Speaker 2: I say stupid, but I think there's also like stupid
Speaker 2: and intentionally violent or intentionally anti science decisions that this
Speaker 2: administration is making.
Speaker 1: It's like corruption and self serving and counterproductive. Like there
Speaker 1: are smart people in this administration. They're doing horrible things.
Speaker 1: And I call, you know, I call it stupid because
Speaker 1: I think it's shortsighted, but like they are, actually they
Speaker 1: know what they're doing. They're just choosing to end the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, And if this goes through, this country will
Speaker 2: be plunged into a steep decline into the dark ages.
Speaker 2: We will be joining the ranks of North Korea and Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: a state of terror ruled by oppressive religious fanatics where
Speaker 2: no one has any freedom. The true goal of the
Speaker 2: Republican Party, which it has always been, Yeah, it has
Speaker 2: always been that, and they have always told.
Speaker 1: Us so, politics aside, because, as we sort of said, scientists,
Speaker 1: science generally speaking is while it is made up of
Speaker 1: individuals who often have a political agenda, the overall or
Speaker 1: the overarching direction and flow of science is not political.
Speaker 1: Sometimes scientific findings are more supportive of policies that a
Speaker 1: conservative would prefer. Sometimes they are more supportive of findings
Speaker 1: that a liberal would prefer. And it's just going to
Speaker 1: report on whatever it finds. And it can't do that
Speaker 1: if it's being told what to report by the people
Speaker 1: who are holding the purse strings now, right, So this
Speaker 1: would effectively kill science in the United States. Fortunately, other
Speaker 1: countries have stepped up to really increase their funding and
Speaker 1: contributions to science. France and Spain have been pushing a
Speaker 1: lot to fund a lot of scientific research, and a
Speaker 1: lot of people are leaving the country who are scientists
Speaker 1: to go to those countries because they're very friendly to
Speaker 1: people who are experts and know what they're doing. So
Speaker 1: they'll probably become more or less the powerhouses of scientific
Speaker 1: research moving forward. And good for them, I guess, But
Speaker 1: really for us in the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, real bad. It's a real bad situation now.
Speaker 1: Most of the time when there are proposals of this nature,
Speaker 1: there's a pretty long window of time that people can
Speaker 1: weigh in and share their thoughts. This is a public thing,
Speaker 1: so you listener can do this if you'd like. The
Speaker 1: President of the Council and Government Relations states that this
Speaker 1: is an unusually short period of time for such wide changes.
Speaker 1: But we have forty five days from when this was announced,
Speaker 1: which was I think May twenty ninth or twenty eighth,
Speaker 1: something like that, that this was announced, forty five days
Speaker 1: to comment on these proposed regulations, and at the time
Speaker 1: that you hear this will have very very little. That
Speaker 1: means that the final day for public comment is July thirteenth,
Speaker 1: So do not wait, if you would like to share
Speaker 1: your thoughts on this, I'm putting the links in here.
Speaker 1: You can go to a portal. It's at Federal Register
Speaker 1: dot gov. But if you just google, I don't remember
Speaker 1: what I googled, but if you google something about this,
Speaker 1: like the OMB grant proposal thing in public comment, you
Speaker 1: should be able to find it in some capacity. If
Speaker 1: you just google any of those words. Many of the
Speaker 1: news sites have links to the specific portal you can
Speaker 1: go and leave comments. I know I will be doing this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: my hope that Shane will be doing this. I expect
Speaker 1: that many of our listeners can and also would have
Speaker 1: an interest in doing this. Tell them to GoF with
Speaker 1: this nonsense. Yeah, obviously do it and not those words.
Speaker 1: They need to hear this message, but like they need
Speaker 1: to hear that this is not something we're okay with.
Speaker 1: Not that that's going to stop them, it probably won't,
Speaker 1: but they need to hear it as much as possible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, Okay.
Speaker 1: I think that is what we have to say about
Speaker 1: this god awful nightmare that we live in.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm not sure what else I say right now,
Speaker 2: other than please speak up like it can be hard.
Speaker 2: It can be scary, but please speak up.
Speaker 1: It makes a difference, Yes, it does, and share this episode.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know I say that selfishly to like
Speaker 1: get us out there, but like this is something people
Speaker 1: need to hear as well. We are reporting on exactly
Speaker 1: what is being said on here, and yes we icinged
Speaker 1: on a lot of our opinions about it, but the
Speaker 1: point is, like we're not making this up. This is
Speaker 1: what is probably gonna happen, and it represents a dangerous,
Speaker 1: dangerous move in this country that will royally guss for
Speaker 1: decades to come. Yes, absolutely, Okay, great, well, thanks to
Speaker 1: all those who got us here. If you would like
Speaker 1: to tell us your thoughts on this, you can email
Speaker 1: us directly infowwdwwdpodcast dot com. We look forward to hearing from.
Speaker 1: You can also leave us a message on the social
Speaker 1: media platforms. That is great too. If you are joining
Speaker 1: us for the first time. You may not know this,
Speaker 1: but at the end of our discussions we do some
Speaker 1: fun recommendations that are unrelated to our topic at hand.
Speaker 1: It's it's a good time. We just you know, we
Speaker 1: enjoy it. I think we think people enjoy it. It's cool,
Speaker 1: it's fun. First, I'd like to say that. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: if you'd like to support us, you can join us
Speaker 1: on Patreon. If you do, you get poonus content, add
Speaker 1: free episodes, early episodes, and I will read your name
Speaker 1: in the list of supporters who help us make this
Speaker 1: show a show. So thank you so much too, Mike,
Speaker 1: m Megan, Mike T, Justin, Kim Brad, Stephanie, Brian, Ashley, Kiara,
Speaker 1: and Charlie for all that you have done for helping
Speaker 1: us stick around and be a podcast. You are the best.
Speaker 2: You are truly the loveliest.
Speaker 1: Indeed, you can also support us by leaving us a
Speaker 1: rating and a review. Go click those five stars or
Speaker 1: ten stars, however many stars it'll let you click. It
Speaker 1: just makes you feel good, It helps us, it helps
Speaker 1: the algorithm. It's all good stuff. That's just one way
Speaker 1: you can support us non financially. You can also tell
Speaker 1: a friend to make sure you subscribe to catch all
Speaker 1: future episodes, and then like or whatever share this. Go subscribe,
Speaker 1: Go tell friends. Okay. Also, thank you to my team
Speaker 1: of people for helping me make this podcast exist. Writing
Speaker 1: in fact checking from Shane and myself. Thank you for
Speaker 1: recording with me today. Shane, Hey, thanks for having me
Speaker 1: social media Coordinator z Emma Wilson, and our audio technician
Speaker 1: engineer God Emperor Executive is Justin who is so good
Speaker 1: at what he does and wonderful. I would want him
Speaker 1: on my peer review committee definitely, And of course thank
Speaker 1: you all for listening. But I think that gets us
Speaker 1: to the point where we can get to our recommendations.
Speaker 2: I love it recommendations. I'm gonna recommend a movie that
Speaker 2: just came out, and that movie is called Star Wars,
Speaker 2: The Mandalorian and Grow Goo. So if you are a
Speaker 2: fan of the Mandalorian show, it's just a great Indiana
Speaker 2: Jones cowboy western adventure type of Star Wars story like.
Speaker 2: It plays a lot of like you know, the good,
Speaker 2: the bad, and the ugly. It plays a lot like
Speaker 2: some of those old spaghetti westerns that people talk about,
Speaker 2: so this is no different. It adds to the lore
Speaker 2: I think of Star Wars a little bit where you've
Speaker 2: got job of the Huts family that's involved in this
Speaker 2: and they're awful. And it's got Pedro Pascal, who is great.
Speaker 2: It's got Sigourney Weaver in it. She's really good as
Speaker 2: a New Republic commander, which is really cool.
Speaker 1: Cool.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it's just fun. It's what's lovely about
Speaker 2: it is it's a Star Wars story that's not about
Speaker 2: the Skywalker family, which I think we need some of
Speaker 2: those sometimes yes to kind of expand on that world.
Speaker 2: And I think that it's just a great adventure story.
Speaker 2: Like it's a fun, just kind of Indiana Jones style
Speaker 2: adventure story in Star Wars. So it's worth checking out.
Speaker 2: It's a good time.
Speaker 1: I'm very interested in seeing this. Yeah, I hope to
Speaker 1: make it to the theater before it's gone for six
Speaker 1: months and then finally makes it to streaming by December.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I definitely want to see this. Very good.
Speaker 1: I'm recommending a TV show. I've recommended it before, but
Speaker 1: they just wrapped season five, so I'm recommending the TV
Speaker 1: show Ghosts. This is the American version of a UK show,
Speaker 1: as Americans like to do sometimes. The premise, if you
Speaker 1: don't know, is somebody who hits their head, dies temporarily
Speaker 1: and then wakes up and they can see ghosts and
Speaker 1: they realize that the house that they've inherited, this large mansion,
Speaker 1: is just filled with ghosts and high jinks ensue. And
Speaker 1: so the season's been great it's such a great show.
Speaker 1: It's honestly one of my favorite shows that's on right now.
Speaker 1: It's really funny. It's set up like a sitcom, but
Speaker 1: it also has a lot of heart at times. I
Speaker 1: think the writing is just really really well done. I
Speaker 1: love all the actors on it, so really fun show.
Speaker 1: I know it's a CBS show, so it's available on Peacock,
Speaker 1: I believe. Okay, maybe on Amazon. I think I think
Speaker 1: those are places you can find it. It's around, so
Speaker 1: I recommend it.
Speaker 2: I love it, all right.
Speaker 1: That is Ghosts, the TV show and and the movie
Speaker 1: the new movie Star Wars, the Mandalorian, and grogu our recommendations.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I think that's what I have to say
Speaker 1: about this. I think I'm gonna go fume some more
Speaker 1: about the horrors of our derelict future. Anything you'd like
Speaker 1: to add or that I forgot before we wrap up?
Speaker 2: No, I think I think that covers it great.
Speaker 1: All right, This is Abraham, this is Shane. We're out.
Speaker 2: See ya.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to Why We Do What We Do.
Speaker 2: You can learn more about this and other episodes by.
Speaker 1: Going to WWD WWD podcast dot com.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening and We hope you have an awesome day.