Tag: Red

  • Trump Adviser Blames “Scientific Slowdown” on DEI, Red Tape

    Trump Adviser Blames “Scientific Slowdown” on DEI, Red Tape

    President Donald Trump’s science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy believes the recent, seismic cuts to federal research funding offer “a moment of clarity” for the scientific community to rethink its priorities, including the government’s role in supporting research.

    Michael Kratsios, who is pushing for increased private sector support of research, said that federal investment in scientific research—much of which happens at universities—has yielded “diminishing returns” over the past 45 years.

    “As in scientific inquiry, when we uncover evidence that conflicts with our existing theories, we revise our theories and conduct further experiments to better understand the truth,” Kratsios, a former tech executive with ties to tech titan and conservative activist Peter Thiel, said at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday. “This evidence of a scientific slowdown should spur us to experiment with new systems, new models, new ways of funding, conducting and using science.”

    But some experts believe Kratsios’s comments mischaracterized trends in the nation’s academic research enterprise, which has been faced with decades of declining federal funding.

    “Kratsios may have things exactly backward. Our growth has slowed down over decades—the same decades where we have been funding science less and less as a share of GDP,” Benjamin Jones, an economics professor at Northwestern University and former senior economist for macroeconomics for the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “Federally supported research is near its lowest level in the last 70 years. If the U.S. really wants to be ‘first’ in the world, the key will be how fast we advance. Cutting science is just a huge brake on our engine.”

    A wide body of literature confirms that federally funded research and development continues to produce enormous social returns. A 2024 paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas showed that rates of return on nondefense R&D spending range from 140 to 210 percent. Another report from United for Medical Research determined that for every dollar the National Institutes of Health spent on research funding in 2024, it generated $2.56 of economic activity. And yet another science policy expert has estimated that an additional dollar of government-sponsored R&D generates between $2 and $5 in public benefits via economic growth.

    But those facts were absent from Kratsios’s remarks, which accused scientists of focusing on “trying to score political points” and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives instead of so-called gold-standard science. “Spending more money on the wrong things is far worse than spending less money on the right things,” he said. “Political biases have displaced the vital search for truth.”

    Kratsios also cited “stalled” scientific progress despite “soaring” biomedical research budgets and “stagnated” workforce training as proof that “more money has not meant more scientific discovery, and total dollars spent has not been a proxy for scientific impact.” Since 1980, he specified, “papers and patents across the sciences have become less disruptive,” and since the 1990s, “new drug approvals have flatlined or even declined.”

    The White House OSTP did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for Kratsios’s sources of information, but some outside experts said those specific claims have merit, even if they lack additional context.

    A 2023 paper in Nature shows that patents and papers are indeed becoming less “disruptive” over time. But the authors themselves said the slowdown is “unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or field-specific factors,” but rather “may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology,” which is presenting increasingly difficult and complex problems for researchers. The authors also called on federal agencies to “invest in the riskier and longer-term individual awards that support careers and not simply specific projects.”

    (Many of the federal research grants the Trump administration has terminated in recent months supported those aims, including funding for graduate and postdoctoral students and multiyear projects that weren’t yet complete.)

    And even though new inventions may be decreasingly likely to push science and technology in new directions, as the Nature paper indicated, federally funded research has nonetheless expanded its reach to consumers since 1980—the same time frame Kratsios claims has been marked by diminishing returns that warrant an overhaul of federal research policy.

    Prior to the 1980s, the government owned the intellectual property of any discoveries made using federal research dollars. The policy gave universities little incentive to find practical uses for inventions, and fewer than 5 percent of the 28,000 patents held by federal agencies had been licensed for use, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    That changed when Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, allowing universities, not-for-profit corporations and small businesses to patent and commercialize federally funded inventions. Universities began transferring inventions to industry partners for commercialization. Between 1996 and 2020, academic technology transfers in the U.S. contributed $1.9 trillion in gross industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs and resulted in more than 126,000 patents awarded to research institutions, according to data from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM).

    As for Kratsios’s claim that drug approvals have “flatlined,” Matt Clancy, a senior research fellow at Open Philanthropy, said that’s a matter of interpretation. “If you think it means discovery is dead and not happening, that’s clearly false,” he said, noting that while drugs had been getting steadily more expensive to develop in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, costs have started falling over the past decade. “If you think it means the rate of discovery has not increased in proportion to the increase in spending, I think that is correct.”

    ‘The Enemy of Good Science’

    Kratsios also tied those alleged declines in innovation to the assertion that researchers have fallen victim to a misguided “professional culture” and to “social pressures.” As an example, he pointed to the scientific community’s insistence on keeping schools closed to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus as an example of scientists’ unwillingness to question dominant viewpoints. “Convention, dogma and intellectual fads are the enemy of good science,” he said.

    Administrative burdens have also hamstrung the scientific enterprise, he added.

    “The money that goes to basic and blue-sky science must be used for that purpose, not to feed the red tape that so often goes along with funded research,” Kratsios said. “We cannot resign our research community and the laboratory and university staff who support them to die the death of a thousand 10-minute tasks. To assist the nation’s scientists in their vocation, we will reduce administrative burdens on federally funded researchers, not bog them down in bureaucratic box checking.”

    Expanding the role of private funders is part of Kratsios’s solution.

    “In particular, in a period of fiscal constraints and geopolitical challenges, an increase in private funding can make it easier for federal grant-making agencies to refocus public funds on basic research and the national interest,” he said at the NAS meeting, which was attended by university lobbyists and senior administrators.

    “Prizes, challenges, public-private partnerships and other novel funding mechanisms can multiply the impact of targeted federal dollars. We must tie grants to clear strategic targets while still allowing for the openness of scientific exploration and so shape a general funding environment that makes clear what our national priorities are.”

    According to Kratsios, private industry is well positioned to step in. He claims the sector spends “more than three times on R&D than does the federal government,” though it’s not clear from where he drew that statistic. Data from AUTM shows that in 2023, industry expenditures made up just 6.8 percent of all research spending in the United States, compared to 56.6 percent from the federal government. (Inside Higher Ed has previously reported on the challenges of looking to private funders to meaningfully make up for the Trump administration’s current and proposed cuts to academic research.)

    Shalin Jyotishi, senior adviser for education, labor and the future of work at the left-leaning think tank New America, said that while some of the issues that Kratsios raised regarding federal science policy have merit, the administration hasn’t put forth a clear vision for reform.

    “Instead, what we are seeing is ‘creative destruction’ playing out across the federal research enterprise—without the ‘creative’ part,” he said. “It’s not too late. The administration can and should still salvage the federal research enterprise and enact reform to make it even better.”

    Source link

  • No Safe State: Former DEI Employee Says to Look for the Red Flags

    No Safe State: Former DEI Employee Says to Look for the Red Flags

    Dr. Nicole DelMastro-Jeffery, former executive director for the DEI and Belonging office and Title IX coordinator at Richland Community College.On January 21, one day after his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order he called “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” instructing federal agencies to end diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices and programs.

    The very next day, Dr. Nicole DelMastro-Jeffery, executive director for the DEI and Belonging office and Title IX coordinator at Richland Community College in Decatur, Illinois, was let go from her non-federal position.

    In a sense, DelMastro-Jeffery’s story is familiar. State legislatures across the country have introduced and passed laws curbing DEI at educational institutions, even before Trump issued his order. Since then, a growing number of DEI offices have either shuttered or reorganized, and DEI-focused employees have been dismissed or had their roles changed.

    But Illinois has no anti-DEI laws established, despite some competing bills introduced on the House and Senate floor. On February 7, State Sen. Andrew S. Chesney introduced SB2288, calling for the abolishment of DEI programs in departments of the state government. Conversely, on January 29, State Rep. Sonya M. Harper filed HR0077, a bill to affirm DEI programs in local, state, federal, educational and other institutions.

    According to DelMastro-Jeffery, in early 2024 when the Biden-Harris administration issued a new Dear Colleague letter which expanded Title IX for the further protection of women and transgender individuals, Richland moved toward implementing those changes. However, by December 2024, she said that Richland “quickly rolled back to the 2020 legislation.”

    “Ultimately,” she said, “Going back to 2020 legislative measures decreased protections, not only for transgender community members but women as well.”

    For DelMastro-Jeffery, the institutional waffling between Title IX regulations was a red flag, one that should be heeded by other DEI professionals and institutions working to preserve their DEI programs.

    “We have rarely considered the legal ramifications of separate laws and how their implementation and adjustments may in fact serve as awareness flags of next moves, like that of chess match players,” she said. “It is my belief that this federal injunction or swift rollback of expanded 2024 Title IX protections should have served as an immediate wakeup call to our DEI community.”

    DelMastro-Jeffery arrived at Richland fresh off an internship with the Biden-Harris administration. She said she was thrilled at the chance to apply all she had learned to a rural college environment. Her dismissal, she said, “felt like a triple backlash to both my former public service work, status as a woman of color in higher education, and DEI executive leader.”

    Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE), said the attacks on DEI, including Trump’s order, have continued to demonize it, stripping all meaning from the acronym. She intentionally uses the words “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” instead of DEI.

    Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of NADOHE.Paulette Granberry Russell, CEO and president of NADOHE.Granberry Russell said she is “disappointed by the failure of institutions that over-complied to the threats to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, rather than taking a stand to say these efforts are not divisive.”

    The misinformation disseminated through anti-DEI laws and orders have produced significant misunderstanding in the public sphere, “that somehow efforts associated with advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion is unlawful. That is not the case,” said Granberry Russell.

    “We’re seeing what I often refer to as a ‘chilling effect,’ where institutions are preemptively scaling back diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts due to political pressure or fear of litigation,” said Granberry Russell.

    NADOHE is the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward, a national legal organization of litigators, policy makers, regulators and public educators working to advance democracy. The suit was filed against the Trump Administration in early February calling Trump’s attack on DEI unconstitutional.

    Granberry Russell acknowledged that, since the legislation and executive order, many DEI officers and employees have lost their roles. But she does not know how many, as there is no national database tracking these changes.

    DelMastro-Jeffery said “this experience has illuminated, for me, the intersection between gender, leadership values, and the importance of pressing on.”

    She continued, “Amid the growing dismissal of DEI programming, now diluted to words on a website, we would be negligent to forget the value of diversity and how the world, including systems of education, thrives on it.”

    Richland leadership did not respond to requests for comment. Their website still hosts a page for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging and Accessibility, which affirms these as a “core institutional value.”

    Source link

  • 15 Red Flags Early in a Relationship (2024)

    15 Red Flags Early in a Relationship (2024)

    So you go out on a first date, then, a second, then a third. And this person seems perfect – maybe even too perfect. There’s a good chance they’re just perfect for you. But there’s also a chance there’s something you’re missing. So let’s explore some potential red flags for the date that just seems that little bit TOO perfect.

    Red Flags in a Relationship

    15. They’re overly charismatic.

    Example: “Whenever we’re out, they always seem to charm everyone, but I can’t shake the feeling that it’s all just an act.”

    Excessive charm can mask a person’s real intentions. While it’s easy to be captivated by someone who always seems to say the right thing, this charm may be a distraction from deeper issues like dishonesty or manipulation. Charismatic individuals may use their likability to avoid accountability or prevent you from noticing problematic behavior. It’s crucial to assess if the charm is genuine or simply a tool for control.

    14. Lack of depth in conversations.

    Example: “Every time I try to talk about something meaningful, they quickly change the subject to something light and superficial.”

    Surface-level conversations are common when you’re just getting to know someone, but if they consistently avoid deeper topics, it could signal emotional unavailability. If they steer clear of meaningful discussions about emotions, values, or future plans, it may indicate that they’re not interested in building a true connection. This lack of depth may prevent the relationship from growing and leave you feeling emotionally unfulfilled.

    13. Inconsistent stories.

    Example: “Last week they said they grew up in the city, but now they’re talking about how much they loved growing up on a farm.”

    If someone’s stories frequently change or they struggle to remember details about past experiences, it can be a sign that they’re fabricating or embellishing parts of their life. These inconsistencies could point to dishonesty or manipulation, as they may be trying to create an image of themselves that isn’t real. Pay attention to whether their stories align with what they’ve previously said or if there are glaring contradictions.

    12. They’re overly agreeable.

    Example: “No matter what I suggest, they always say ‘yes,’ but I’m starting to wonder if they have any opinions of their own.”

    While it can feel nice when someone agrees with you, constant agreement could indicate that they are trying too hard to gain your approval or avoid conflict. People who always go along with whatever you say might lack their own sense of self or be hiding their true thoughts and feelings. Disagreements are natural in any healthy relationship, and someone with genuine opinions won’t always mirror yours.

    11. They avoid personal questions.

    Example: “Whenever I ask about their family or past, they dodge the question or give vague answers.”

    Deflecting or avoiding personal questions, especially about their past, can be a major red flag. This type of behavior might suggest that they are hiding something significant, such as past mistakes or unresolved issues. Open communication is essential in building trust, and someone who refuses to share basic details about their life may not be ready for a genuine connection.

    10. They’re too quick to commit.

    Example: “After just two weeks of dating, they were already talking about moving in together and planning a future.”

    If someone pushes for a serious relationship too quickly, it can feel flattering at first but often signals deeper issues. Fast-tracking commitment can be a strategy to secure control or trust before you’ve had the chance to truly know each other. Healthy relationships take time to develop; rushing can prevent you from noticing potential red flags or from establishing a solid foundation based on mutual understanding.

    9. Excessive flattery.

    Example: “They constantly tell me how amazing I am, but sometimes it feels like they’re just trying to win me over too quickly.”

    Compliments are nice, but when someone showers you with praise all the time, it can feel insincere or overwhelming. Excessive flattery is sometimes used to lower your defenses and make you more trusting before they reveal less favorable aspects of their personality. Be cautious if the flattery feels more like a manipulation tactic than genuine admiration, especially if it’s aimed at gaining your trust too quickly.

    8. They’re too smooth or polished.

    Example: “Everything they say and do seems rehearsed, like they’re performing rather than being real with me.”

    Someone who always appears perfect or seems too polished in their behavior may be putting on a facade. While it’s natural to want to make a good first impression, perpetual perfection is unsustainable and often hides flaws or insecurities. Authentic people are willing to show their vulnerable side, make mistakes, and be real, whereas overly smooth individuals may be masking their true selves.

    7. Lack of close long-term relationships.

    Example: “When I asked about their friends, they mentioned a lot of acquaintances, but no one they’ve known for more than a year.”

    If someone doesn’t have any close, long-standing friendships, it may indicate that they struggle with maintaining meaningful relationships. People with a pattern of brief or superficial connections might have trouble being vulnerable, resolving conflicts, or showing empathy. Healthy relationships, both romantic and platonic, are built on trust, respect, and longevity—lack of such relationships could be a red flag.

    6. They’re secretive about their life.

    Example: “They never tell me where they’ve been or what they’re doing, and their phone is always off limits.”

    Secrecy is often a sign of deception or withholding information. If they are vague about their daily activities, background, or who they spend time with, it could mean they’re hiding important aspects of their life from you. Open and transparent communication builds trust, and someone who keeps too much of their life hidden may be protecting a side of themselves they don’t want you to know about.

    5. They’re always the victim.

    Example: “Every story they tell about past relationships ends with how they were wronged, and never what they might have done wrong.”

    When someone consistently portrays themselves as the victim in past relationships or other life situations, it might suggest they have trouble taking responsibility for their actions. While it’s natural to encounter hardships, if they blame everyone else for their problems without acknowledging their own role, it could indicate a pattern of deflection and lack of accountability. Look for balance in their stories, where they own up to their mistakes.

    4. They tell unrealistic life stories.

    Example: “They claim to have met celebrities and traveled the world, but a lot of the details just don’t add up.”

    Stories that seem exaggerated or too good to be true can be a red flag. People who feel the need to embellish their experiences may be insecure about their real selves or trying to craft a more appealing persona. Overly dramatic or fantastical accounts may suggest that they are not being truthful, and it’s important to gauge if their life stories match up with reality.

    3. They have had a lot of sudden life changes.

    Example: “They’ve switched jobs three times this year and recently moved cities without much explanation.”

    While change is a natural part of life, frequent and abrupt shifts—such as changing jobs, moving homes, or cycling through friend groups—can indicate instability. Consistency in personal and professional life often reflects a level of responsibility and commitment. Sudden, unexplained changes could signal that they are running away from unresolved issues or struggling to maintain stability.

    2. They’re reluctant to introduce you to others.

    Example: “Despite dating for months, they still haven’t introduced me to any of their friends or family.”

    If someone is hesitant to introduce you to their family, friends, or colleagues, it could indicate they are hiding you from parts of their life or that they’re not serious about the relationship. Being part of each other’s social circles is a natural progression in a healthy relationship, and reluctance to do so may suggest they have something to hide or aren’t fully committed.

    1. They have perfectionist tendencies.

    Example: “They expect everything to be flawless, from how the apartment is arranged to how I dress, and it’s starting to feel exhausting.”

    Perfectionism can indicate underlying control issues or deep insecurities. If they hold themselves—and you—to impossibly high standards, it can lead to stress, frustration, and disappointment. No one is perfect, and striving for flawlessness can prevent authentic connection. Healthy relationships embrace imperfections and allow both partners to be human without fear of judgment.

    What about Green Flags?

    Okay, so those are our red flags. But what are the green flags showing you’ve found the one? Well, I show you the green flags to look out for in this article.


    Chris

    Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

    Source link