@muscleepigenetics.bsky.social
Reposted
in other words: it's adding a mountain of new paperwork, and removing the most important parts of it.
Any justification for ignoring peer review order will be hidden in a pile of irrelevant noise. And because this increases the workload on program officials, the new justifications will be rushed.
Any justification for ignoring peer review order will be hidden in a pile of irrelevant noise. And because this increases the workload on program officials, the new justifications will be rushed.
November 24, 2025 at 3:45 AM
in other words: it's adding a mountain of new paperwork, and removing the most important parts of it.
Any justification for ignoring peer review order will be hidden in a pile of irrelevant noise. And because this increases the workload on program officials, the new justifications will be rushed.
Any justification for ignoring peer review order will be hidden in a pile of irrelevant noise. And because this increases the workload on program officials, the new justifications will be rushed.
Reposted
So what is concerning about this policy?
1. it requires new, added justification for EVERY grant funded, and
2. it says that no explicit justification should be written for going out of peer review order.
/5
1. it requires new, added justification for EVERY grant funded, and
2. it says that no explicit justification should be written for going out of peer review order.
/5
November 24, 2025 at 3:45 AM
So what is concerning about this policy?
1. it requires new, added justification for EVERY grant funded, and
2. it says that no explicit justification should be written for going out of peer review order.
/5
1. it requires new, added justification for EVERY grant funded, and
2. it says that no explicit justification should be written for going out of peer review order.
/5
Reposted
One stop for arbitrary, non-scientific decision-making for grant awards is to require institute officials to write specific justifications when awards are made outside of peer review ordering.
/4
/4
November 24, 2025 at 3:45 AM
One stop for arbitrary, non-scientific decision-making for grant awards is to require institute officials to write specific justifications when awards are made outside of peer review ordering.
/4
/4
Reposted
In 1945, the US Army put out a training manual designed to equip rank and file soldiers with the tools to spot and combat incipient fascism were it to emerge in post-war America. Those lessons are just as American as Miller's illiberal bigotry, and worth remembering today. bsky.app/profile/seth...
The first fascistic tactic to look out for is a hate campaign against a particular religious, racial, or ethnic group. Like, for example, let's say a candidate emerges who calls all people of one nationality "rapists" and "criminals," while promising to ban immigrants from only one religious group.
November 28, 2025 at 2:41 PM
In 1945, the US Army put out a training manual designed to equip rank and file soldiers with the tools to spot and combat incipient fascism were it to emerge in post-war America. Those lessons are just as American as Miller's illiberal bigotry, and worth remembering today. bsky.app/profile/seth...
Reposted
This horrible tragedy was the only point of this National Guard deployment. Do not validate this terrifying mission by pretending Trump cares about the lives of the men & women he used as bait, or the safety of the civilians he was hoping to terrorize into violence.
November 28, 2025 at 12:45 AM
This horrible tragedy was the only point of this National Guard deployment. Do not validate this terrifying mission by pretending Trump cares about the lives of the men & women he used as bait, or the safety of the civilians he was hoping to terrorize into violence.