The Huffpost story looks like it is full of junk. It says Pantex fired 1/3 of its work force. It has 4500 people, so they got rid of 1500? No I do not think so. Also it is subcontractors those people are not NNSA employees so this cannot even be correct by definition.
There is a whole lot of bad information going around that is being spun by both sides. Just a little checking and you can see it is bs.
Doge claims that 25% of NSF grants are DEI. They gave a list of grants they claim are DEI grants, I went looked the list and could not find any DEI grants out of the 15 I chose chose randomly. They are clearly using a very bad algorithm, for key words. I would guess less than 5% of the NSF grants are funding DEI activities. If they get this wrong I can assume they are getting a bunch of stuff wrong as well.
When DOGE says that 25% of grants are for DEI, what is meant here is that 25% contain some kind of DEI statement or message. I'm surprised that it's not closer to 100%. Even LDRD now suggests or virtually requires a DEI statement in the proposal.
I have found many people concerned on what could happen next but I have to find a single person who is against cutting people from NNSA. We alll knows some people who work there or got transferred there. It could certainly be trimmed by a fair amount and work much better.
NSF is the same thing. It has 1700 people now. I think it had 300 people 20 years ago and did a munch better job. Now NSF grants are nightmare to deal with, and they have way too many onsite panels. Every conference now have NSF people showing up, who are simply not getting anything out of attending these events. It used to pretty much peer reviewed at the bottom line but now they have so many people that they are now pressing their thumb on the scale. Any who served on these panels know what is going on. The DEI thing is real especially with grant outcome because peer review is become a smaller part of the process now.
This theme repeats throughout many Federal organizations and seems like it got much worse in the last 10-15 years which growth was a metric of success.
Covid just added the extra "work from home model" which reduced the effeteness even more.
8 comments:
Here is more detail. DOGE seem incompetent!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-nuclear-security-firings-doge_n_67b2858de4b0ad102039a970
"a few nuclear scientists with lots of experience "
It was NNSA staffers. Presumably probationary people. I do not think a single scientists was fired.
Where do you get this stuff?
The Huffpost story looks like it is full of junk. It says Pantex fired 1/3 of its work force. It has 4500 people, so they got rid of 1500? No I do not think so. Also it is subcontractors those people are not NNSA employees so this cannot even be correct by definition.
There is a whole lot of bad information going around that is being spun by both sides. Just a little checking and you can see it is bs.
Doge claims that 25% of NSF grants are DEI. They gave a list of grants they claim are DEI grants, I went looked the list and could not find any DEI grants out of the 15 I chose chose randomly. They are clearly using a very bad algorithm, for key words. I would guess less than 5% of the NSF grants are funding DEI activities. If they get this wrong I can assume they are getting a bunch of stuff wrong as well.
When DOGE says that 25% of grants are for DEI, what is meant here is that 25% contain some kind of DEI statement or message. I'm surprised that it's not closer to 100%. Even LDRD now suggests or virtually requires a DEI statement in the proposal.
I have found many people concerned on what could happen next but I have to find a single person who is against cutting people from NNSA. We alll knows some people who work there or got transferred there. It could certainly be trimmed by a fair amount and work much better.
NSF is the same thing. It has 1700 people now. I think it had 300 people 20 years ago and did a munch better job. Now NSF grants are nightmare to deal with, and they have way too many onsite panels. Every conference now have NSF people showing up, who are simply not getting anything out of attending these events. It used to pretty much peer reviewed at the bottom line but now they have so many people that they are now pressing their thumb on the scale.
Any who served on these panels know what is going on. The DEI thing is real especially with grant outcome because peer review is become a smaller part of the process now.
This theme repeats throughout many Federal organizations and seems like it got much worse in the last 10-15 years which growth was a metric of success.
Covid just added the extra "work from home model" which reduced the effeteness even more.
"NO NAME CALLING" "Good job Felon!"
Rules for Thee but not for Me?
I withdrew my comment but not the tought.
Basing such option on HuffPost articles is arguably incompetent ;)
Post a Comment