I'm assuming at this point refusing will be a badge of honour but one which is terminal for federal funding, in this 4 year term if not longer. You would need very high confidence in your future career trajectory to do that.
We had a mini storm over government censorship of CSIRO science in Australia and it got pretty ugly, but this is much uglier.
If they do the same for NSF, earth sciences, DoE and AGW it's going to be pretty nasty.
I don't even have to agree with the science. This kind of mass bad-topic-ban is really unhelpful. I wonder if the editorial boards are also going to put up a fight? I can imagine some kind of "retracted because of Trump policy, not because the peer review process asked for it" markers.
Genetics, and Lysenkoism comes to mind. A stain on soviet science which echoed down the years.
We had a mini storm over government censorship of CSIRO science in Australia and it got pretty ugly, but this is much uglier.
If they do the same for NSF, earth sciences, DoE and AGW it's going to be pretty nasty.
I don't even have to agree with the science. This kind of mass bad-topic-ban is really unhelpful. I wonder if the editorial boards are also going to put up a fight? I can imagine some kind of "retracted because of Trump policy, not because the peer review process asked for it" markers.
Genetics, and Lysenkoism comes to mind. A stain on soviet science which echoed down the years.