Jason Locasale

The same cycle that contributed to Prasad’s ousting appears to be expanding to others in leadership. It’s relentless criticism across news and social media that centers on narratives around individuals rather than engaging with the reasoning behind decisions. The risk is not only losing good people, but also deterring those who care about standards from stepping into or staying in these roles. That’s a problem for the institution, not just the individuals, and by extension for all who care about maintaining standards.

Ok this figure is pretty intimidating...

The entire NSF research budget is ~$9B/year. This is literally funding every awarded PI at every field and every institution. But we've decided that all of basic science is a rounding error in comparison to venture bets. Please consider funding basic science more.

Exhibit A: "we now have 90% less funding for medical research... We are sacrificing our children's future", illustrated with a 'scientific graph' labeled FUNDING CALLS PLUMMET and accented with a big red arrow That was a reprise of 2024's proclamations of the same Not mentioned were the last 3 NIH budgets signed into law: - 2024, ~$47.6B - 2025, ~$48.3B - 2026, $48.7B In other words, this is what we get when 'Science is Truth' meets 'The end justifies the means'

Nature’s Max Kozlov insists it’s simply public data he's reporting. Yes, the data can be public but it still can be framed to imply intent. “Adapted from Jeremy Berg” matters because it imports someone else’s selection choices—time window, labeling (“grant slowdown”), and interpretation—whether or not he’s quoted in the text. The article never cleanly distinguishes budget execution steps after a shutdown from discretionary obstruction. For example, here are framing cues the article uses (I believe verbatim but please correct if I missed something): 1) Villain–Victim Causality (Intent Implied) •“White House stalls release of approved US science budgets” •“have had their spending slowed.” •“has been slow to authorize its release.” 2) Illegitimacy Cueing (Approved/Signed-Into-Law Emphasis) •“release of approved US science budgets” •“funds that they signed into law for 2026” •“funding … is still not freely flowing.” •“as is required by law.” 3) Crisis Language & Severity Inflation •“rejected sweeping cuts…” •“rejected unprecedented cuts…” •“with an unusual restriction…” •“This is a drastic departure from historical practice,” •“record-breaking 43-day shutdown…” 4) Conclusion-as-Label (Interpretation Baked In) •“Going slow” •“Grant slowdown” •“Rare restriction” 5) Panic Metaphors (Flow/Scarcity) •“new grant awards have slowed to a trickle” •“still not freely flowing.” 6) Power-Grab Framing (Control & Priorities) •“an ‘indispensable statutory tool’…” •“adhering to White House priorities.” •“assert more control over how agencies spend their money,” 7) Advocacy-by-Proxy (Data Presentation Choice) •“Source: NIH Reporter; adapted from Jeremy Berg” 8) Silence-as-Evidence (Non-response Weaponized) •“The OMB did not respond to Nature’s queries…” •“did not respond … about these moves…” •“did not respond … about the delays.” 9) Deviance Framing (“Usually/Normally” as Indictment) •“Usually, after a full-year budget bill is signed into law…” •“Normally, NASA has the discretion…” •“the OMB tweaked the rules…” •“a little-known document…” 10) Scarcity-by-Word-Choice (Only/Leftover/Stopgap) •“can issue new research awards only…” •“using leftover money…” •“meant to be a stopgap…”

We did not push any doomsday narrative; we reported the facts. The White House changed the rules for how agencies receive their appropriated budgets, limiting the NIH's access to its Congress-approved funds for 42 days and slowing down new awards. The data speaks for itself.

The “NIH is no longer functioning” narrative was always dramatically overstated. A delayed apportionment coming after a prolonged government shutdown was framed as institutional collapse rather than what it likely was: a lag in funding flow tied to broader delays in federal operations. That context was largely ignored. Instead, a handful of social influencers amplified by outlets like Science and Nature pushed a doomsday storyline that was far more dramatic than the underlying reality.

Nearly a year ago, my wife went to the hospital for stomach pain. They did a CT Scan of her abdomen and thankfully didn't find anything serious. We got a bill in the mail of $9,117.42 I spent months talking to insurance, the hospital, billing appeals... I was told the claim was still processing. I was told the claim was out of the normal service area. I was told it wasn't clear it was medically necessary. I was told the insurance wasn't valid on the date of service. Finally, we got it handled, but it took well over 6 months from the day we got the first bill to the day we finished the process and paid. We did everything right. We have insurance. We pay our insanely high premiums every single month. It's just so frustrating. This whole healthcare system is broken, from top to bottom.

AI is going to transform academic science. Mostly by helping scientists write grant proposals faster so they can get rejected more efficiently.