Science policy update/outlook, early November edition

We live in interesting times.  A few recent articles and points to consider:

• From a week ago, the New York Times has a long-form journalism piece about "How Trump is Dismantling America's Scientific Research Machine".  Nothing in there will be surprising to regular readers of this blog, but it's important that it's all written down in one place.  I was not a fan of this quote: "Under Mr. Trump, the federal government is still spending roughly as much on research — about $200 billion this year — as the administrations that came before."  This is only true for some values of "true":  Appropriations were essentially flat because Congress pushed back on the presidential budget recommendation, and even then there have been massive delays in funding and in some cases (NSF!) suppressed spending below appropriations. Further, I found this quote both accurate and frustrating:  "“Science is the long game,” said Marcia McNutt, who was president of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s top scientific advisory body, until this summer. “By the time we no longer win any Nobel Prizes, we will have lost the capacity to ever recover.”" I agree with the substance of the quote.  The frustration is with the fact that Dr. McNutt did not make a more public, spirited defense of the nation's science ecosystem when she was president of the NAS.  I also continue not to like statements like "[T]he goal of Genesis is to double the productivity of America’s science industry within a decade" made by Dario Gil and accepted uncritically, without any discussion on how "productivity" is or should be defined.  
• Cole Donovan has an interesting article considering the claim by Peter Thiel and his intellectual followers (including the presidential science advisor) that scientific breakthroughs have slowed down and that the rigid, inefficient university research ecosystem is to blame.  Leaving aside whether there is actually a slowdown, if the overwhelming majority of US spending on research (basic and otherwise) is actually coming from industry, then why is it reasonable to blame universities for an alleged slackening of the pace of breakthrough discovery?
• Speaking of Thiel, this article about the presidential science advisor was certainly interesting.  You don't see too many policy articles that refer to institutions "being flayed alive".
• By the way, NSF lost two more people who were acting in leadership positions.  There is still no National Science Board and no apparent move to appoint one.  Also, PCAST, while existing on paper, has not met since it was reconstituted seven months ago, cancelled its November meeting, and seems to have no meetings planned.  
• The election outcomes in the US are a massive shake-up of Congress.  From the perspective of science funding, things should at least not get worse.  A non-doormat Congress should actually push back against executive branch efforts to deliberately flout appropriations.  Change is difficult, though, when agency leadership all report to the president.  As the AIP points out, the Magic Eightball says "Reply hazy, try again".
• Even before the election, there was a move in the works to (re)create a Congressional Office of Technology, which seems like a good idea (like when I suggested it eight years ago).

As for my local political environment, truly the stars at night are big and bright here at the moment!  No one party should have sole power for decades at a time.  I thought that Sen. Elect Talarico stood a good chance, but I was utterly shocked by the governor, lt. governor, railroad commissioner, agriculture commissioner, school board, etc. all changing hands.  Honestly, three days on and I still half expect to learn that this is an alternate universe where the Dodgers still play in Ebbets Field, Nixon is on the half-dollar, and zeppelins are common modes of air transportation.