Good point. Exactly like when the Biden administration decided to cancel all grants to Harvard University because they didn't allow a government takeover of the university.
My dad is a university researcher. During the Biden administration he was forced to add completely unscientific DEI language to his grants if he wanted to get them funded. You just don't know about it because the media you watch doesn't report on that because they support it. So yeah, the whole Harvard thing is more of the same.
I work in academia. I don't need to rely on media to know about submitting grants. Everything you just said is a lie. I'm sorry that your dad is not a reliable source of information; maybe he has his own biases.
Even if what you are saying were true, it does not compare to the grand level of academic extortion alluded to in my parent comment.
Having been awarded a grant from DMS for an undergrad training program – the "broader impacts statement" was more obnoxious, and forced.
There are other issues that affect our ability to do good science, and the "broadening participation" mandate was peanuts compared to the other indignities of grantwriting.
Politely speaking, I'm not sure what crowd you're speaking for.
This. At most, all I've ever had to do is note that my institution is a land grant university that draws from a diverse pool of applicants, including those in rural areas and 1st generation students. It was maybe a paragraph.
This is wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong. Here is the chapter and verse for what can count as "Broader Impacts" for NSF grants:
> Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the U.S.; use of science and technology to inform public policy; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. These examples of societally relevant outcomes should not be considered either comprehensive or prescriptive. Proposers may include appropriate outcomes not covered by these examples.
Normally not the University. NSF has a "Broader Impact" aspect of the grant applications (for as long as I can remember), and the DOE started to require a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan during the Biden administration. Grant reviewers (typically people from the research community) are asked to take these into account for the review of the proposals.
I suspect the father mentioned above means the latter.
I do not know, but could imagine it's possible, that HBCUs might have their own requirements. But normally, universities do not regulate the proposal writing except for financial aspects (salary windows, IDC+fringe rates etc)
Regarding your last sentence- they also ensure that the grant proposals don't propose to do anything illegal, or that the university is not resourced to carry out.
To a degree, yes. But the grant management personnel are typically not researchers, so it's very hard for them to fully vet the main text of the proposal.
If you really think that's the same thing, I'm not sure what to tell you. Your ability to compare situations and evaluate consequences is completely broken.
I think if Trump just wanted people to swear loyalty statements instead of cutting all the funding, shutting all these departments, cancelling research, etc., they'd be unhappy but still fine with the fact that the research goes on...
