Dan Garisto

@dangaristo

science journalist | good physics, bad physics, and sometimes ugly physics Signal: dgaristo.72 Email: digaristo@gmail.com

433 Folgt6.221 Follower2.271 Posts

YouTube YouTube YouTube Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir dangaristo.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· 28d

Dorigo has a nice overview of the history here: www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epj....

In 1968 Arthur Rosenfeld wrote a paper titled “Are There Any Far-out Mesons or Baryons?” [1]. In
the jargon of HEP in the sixties “far-out hadrons” indicated hypothetical hadrons not fitting in SU(3)
multiplets. In 1968 quarks were not yet fully accepted as real entities, and the question of the existence of exotic hadrons was important. In the paper Rosenfeld demonstrated that the number of
claims of discovery of such exotic particles published in scientific magazines in the sixties agreed
reasonably well with the number of statistical fluctuations that one could expect to observe in the
analyzed datasets. He examined the literature and pointed his finger at large “trials factors” (multiplicative factors affecting the p-value due to the multiple ways that an effect can manifest itself)
coming into play due to the massive use of combinations of observed particles to derive mass spectra
containing potential discoveries: “[...] This reasoning on multiplicities, extended to all combinations of all outgoing particles and to all countries, leads to an estimate of 35 million mass combinations calculated
per year. How many histograms are plotted from these 35 million combinations? A glance
through the journals shows that a typical mass histogram has about 2,500 entries, so the
number we were looking for, h is then 15,000 histograms per year (Our annual surveys
also tells you that the U.S. measurement rate tends to double every two years, so things
will get worse).”

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· 28d

Hep already had its replication crisis 60 years ago (though it took until ~1995 for 5 sigma to become standard). See Rosenfeld's paper from the time. escholarship.org/content/qt6z...

III. EXPECT SEVERAL 40- FLUCTUATIONS PER YEAR
Before we go on to survey far-out mass spectra
where bumps have been reported in (K TITI) 3/2' (TIp) - -. 0._."
we should first decide what threshold of significance to demand in 1968. I want to show you that although experimentalists should probably note 30- effects, theoreticians
and phenomenologists would do better to wait till the effect
reaches > 40-. (Note that doubling the counts on a real 30-
peak should increase its significance to 3".)20- - 4.250-. so
I am not suggesting an impossibly long wait. )
In appendices to our January 1967 compilation of
particle properties. 3 we presented a collection of histograms in which we tried to kill the kappa and H mesons.
We wounded both but killed neither. and ourselves learned
something of the statistical problems that arise when each
year bubble chamber physicists numbering nearly a thousand (if you include graduate students) hunt through tenthousand mass distributions in search of striking features.
either real or statistical fluctuations.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· 28d

-So the concern w/r/t fundamental research is really about the relative loss of soft power; a perfectly legitimate concern, but merits different considerations for research security than IP theft/classified stuff does. That has basically been US policy—see NSDD-189: irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsdd...

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 15

Keiser: The new policy bolsters NSF's 'TRUST' framework. cf. Jeff's reporting www.science.org/content/arti...

Two years ago, NSF’s chief of research security described how the agency wanted to preserve some collaborations with China while mitigating the possibility of economic or military espionage of vital U.S. technologies. “We cannot continue to lead the world in science and innovation if we are fixated on achieving zero risk related to research security,” explained Rebecca Keiser, now NSF’s chief of staff, in unveiling a new metric, called Trusted Research Using Safeguards and Transparency (TRUST), to “assess grant proposals for potential national security risks.”

But TRUST now appears to be history with respect to China and other countries deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. “NSF has determined research security risk mitigation for NSF-funded projects involving these restricted entities is not sufficient,” the new policy reads.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 13

Comments on the OMB rule close tonight and MIT has submitted a 6-pg note, arguing it "would substitute political views for scientific judgment, short-term alignment for long-term stability, and insularity for the openness that has been a source of American strength." web.mit.edu/files/MIT-co...

MIT’s service to the nation is sustained and unbroken. The federal-university partnership envisioned by
Vannevar Bush has succeeded for eighty years because the government invests in research across areas of
national priority, selecting the best researchers to advance that work on the merits and then trusts those
researchers to do it. We are concerned that the provisions we describe above in the proposed rule move
away from that successful and world-renowned, merit-based model. They would substitute political
views for scientific judgment, short-term alignment for long-term stability, and insularity for the openness
that has been a source of American strength.
For decades, America has chosen to anchor its research enterprise in merit, stability, and openness. These
values created the conditions for the most ambitious and successful scientific inquiries the world has ever
known, producing breakthroughs of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health, and
security of the United States. The proposed rule endangers those values and, in doing so, jeopardizes the
very foundation of American scientific preeminence at a critical time in history. MIT has long operated
under the guiding principle that scientific inquiry should be based on scientific merit alone. In our view,
America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition
for excellence.
We urge OMB to reconsider these far-reaching changes. MIT stands ready to engage constructively with
OMB to develop a regulatory framework that genuinely advances accountability, efficiency, and scientific
excellence—goals that can be achieved only by preserving a commitment to transparency, merit, and
rigor.
Thank you for considering MIT’s perspective on the proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 11

Admittedly, this does make the OMB inference at NSF and other federal agencies look a little quaint. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/11/u...

The direct control over Venezuela’s public revenues, in particular, distinguishes Washington’s influence there from most other countries beholden to its military and financial might.

The U.S. Treasury receives the revenue from most of Venezuela’s exports, then disburses it gradually to Venezuela through the country’s private banks, a relationship akin to parents handing out allowances to children. Mr. Rubio and his team set the conditions on what that money can be spent on, and by whom.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 10

It may be that they don't have much less to spend this year, especially if the withheld money is not released. Here's BIO, which is slated for a ~30% cut and doing better than some. Teal triangle shows the projected amount.

Plot showing BIO's projected funding situation.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 10

These cuts come as NSF is less than a month away from its early-August goal of getting all recommended proposals ready for the Office of Award Management.

Plot showing spending curves for each directorate relative to its 5-year average. None of them are above 50%. Avg. is ~27%

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 10

But combine the clawbacks and withholding, and every directorate (besides TIP) would see a 30%+ drop compared to last year.

Plot showing projected funding shortfalls for all of NSF's grantmaking directorates, except TIP, compared to FY25.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 10

NSF didn't dispute the numbers, but noted that unspent money doesn't expire until October 2027. Spox comments:

The U.S. National Science Foundation is not going to comment on internal budget deliberations or communications with Congress.

NSF remains committed to supporting curiosity-driven research and our high standards of merit review. NSF’s Research and Related Activities account has a two-year period of availability for obligation. Funds appropriated in FY 2026 are available for awards in FY 2026 and FY 2027. Proposals that are received but not awarded remain eligible for future consideration, including in Fiscal Year 2027, unless or until they are declined or returned. Informal notification that a proposal has been recommended for funding is not a commitment to fund a proposal. NSF may revise budgets or manage portfolios as needed.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 10

Here's the full context of NSF's denial re: X-Labs in response to my questions.

Is NSF pulling funding from other directorates to be used for X-Labs?

No, the premise of the Science article that NSF is pulling funding from other Directorates to be used for X-Labs is simply wrong. NSF TIP has set aside funding allocated to it as part of the FY 2026 process to cover the Phase 0 Planning Grants anticipated in FY 2026 and FY 2027. NSF TIP’s ability to invest in Phase 1 and beyond will be subject to future-year appropriations.

What is the funding situation for X-Labs? How much funds are to be spent in FY26 and FY27?

We have stated that, over the next decade, NSF will invest up to $1.5 billion in NSF X-Labs. However, like all such investment profiles, that level is subject to annual appropriations as well as the quality of proposals received in response to the NSF X-Labs funding opportunity and specific Topic Announcements. As noted above, NSF TIP has set aside funding allocated to it as part of the FY 2026 process to cover the Phase 0 Planning Grants anticipated in FY 2026 and the President’s Budget Request includes $50 million for X-Labs in FY 2027.

TIP has made just 68 new awards in FY26, as of June 22. What is the reason for the relative paucity? Has TIP faced problems in getting large new awards approved without NSB?

NSF has experienced a few factors outside of its control that have had an early impact on its grantmaking throughput. For example, the agency lost 45 days to an appropriations lapse at the beginning of the fiscal year and continues to recover from that. Additionally, the NSF Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program typically makes about 400 awards each year, but that program experienced an authorization lapse from October 1, 2025, through mid-April 2026. NSF has statutory authority to make TIP awards and TIP awards do not require NSB approval. We anticipate that the number of new awards will climb as the fiscal year progresses.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jul 7

One reason why some legal commentators don't subscribe to legal realism is that it renders a lot of the more interesting legal analysis they might do completely moot. Another reason is apparently that some of them are thick enough to pick up the phone with Isaac Chotiner on the other end.

I’m sure John Roberts thinks tariffs are a stupid economic policy.

I don’t know, but I guess here’s what I would say. I have no doubt that John Roberts is animated by institutional concerns on top of everything else, right? John Roberts plainly does not want to go down as the Chief Justice under whom this Supreme Court became hopelessly divided, with the automatic 6–3, the automatic pro-conservative outcome. And he has gone out of his way to broker outcomes within the Court to wheel and deal.

Aren’t you describing politics?

Yeah, listen, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh are pure beings who never consider politics. But I think there’s a difference between institutional politics and engineering policy-real-world outcomes, right? Institutional politics happens every day between and among all nine Justices, right? But look, if Roberts’s goal was to undermine the wide perception that this is just a hopelessly, ideologically split 6–3 Court, I think he made progress in that. I think he’s got several powerful exhibits he can point to. Now, whether his motivation was simply to calm the Court’s critics, or to do something else, I don’t know.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 30

Here's the relevant addition, allowing private parties to sue for noncompliance.

(b) Private causes of action. If applicable and consistent with law and regulation, a
Federal agency, may, at its discretion, cooperate with individuals or organizations in their pursuit
of private causes of action and civil remedies based on the failure of a recipient or subrecipient to
comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of a
Federal award. Consistent with § 200.318(k), this generally would not include cases related to
the settlement of contractual or administrative issues arising out of a recipient’s or subrecipient’s
procurement transactions, except as necessary to comply with law or if the matter is primarily a
Federal concern. A Federal agency should only cooperate with a private cause of action if it
determines that such cooperation is in the interest of the United States.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 30

"Aligning with the proposed revisions to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 through the proposed rule published on May 29, 2026 (see 91 Fed. Reg. 32, 198, May 29, 2026)." Strange coincidence.

Overall Document Changes
The NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA) replaces the NSF Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (version 24-1). The GFA enhances use for proposers
and recipients of NSF grants and cooperative agreements by:
• Aligning NSF policy with applicable Executive Orders, including EO 14222,
Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Cost Efficiency
Initiative; EO 14332, Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking; and EO 14303,
Restoring Gold Standard Science.
• Aligning with the proposed revisions to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 through the proposed rule published on May 29, 2026
(see 91 Fed. Reg. 32, 198, May 29, 2026).
• Streamlining financial assistance policies and procedures to reduce administrative
burden and eliminate duplicative content.
• Distinguishing policies from procedures to improve clarity and usability.
• Organizing content by topic rather than by chapter to improve access to information.
• Using plain language to improve readability and accessibility.
• Distinguishing responsibilities for different users (e.g., Principal Inve

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 30

cf. NIH, which is basically on pace with FY25 spending. Obligations are actually slightly above.

Chart of cumulative number of NIH awards

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 30

A fairly big jump for BIO (~60 grants), nothing else of particular notice. SBE and EDU remain unusually low in award numbers and obligations. (TIP, for ex., is low in new awards but level in historic obligations.)

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 30

NSF grantmaking update Last week ago (6/22) New grants: 1594/4881 — 32.6% of avg. Obligations: 1.8/2.82 billion — 63.8% of avg. Now (6/28) New grants: 1835/5202 — 35.3% of avg. Obligations: 1.9/3.08 billion — 61.6% of avg. Data from grant-witness.us/funding_curv...

Plot of cumulative number of NSF awards—well below historic avg.

Plot of cumulative NSF obligations. About 60% of historic levels.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 26

Hard to say that Whitesides was off-topic with this, since it was an elephant in the room. There was also a pretty remarkable moment where Bill Foster asked about OTA (the authority used to fund X-Labs) and Springmann, the OIG official, said "we have a lot to learn" about oversight of it.

NSF grantmaking slowdown
In the hearing, Democrats flagged reports that NSF has issued fewer grants than usual this year. Republicans called the narrative “misleading” and argued that the total amount of funding NSF has issued this year is “very commensurate” with previous years.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA) showed charts from Grant Witness that document the pace of NSF grantmaking for each fiscal year. For instance, as of June 22, NSF had issued around 1,600 grants, compared to over 3,000 at the same point in fiscal year 2025, and an average of more than 5,000 at the same point in years 2021 to 2024. Whitesides asked Springmann if NSF OIG is investigating this. Springmann said these are management decisions and not being investigated.

Whitesides suggested that grantmaking at NSF may have slowed because political appointees at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy are now approving grant awards, in alignment with a White House proposed rule issued last month. Springmann said she did not know if this was true and NSF leadership would be in the best position to answer. NSF declined to comment on Whitesides’s remarks.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 26

Democrats, meanwhile, asked the OIG officials questions, such as: "Is it legal to have a program for recruiting more women into STEM?" and did not get clear answers.

Democrats at the hearing accused the DOJ of using the FCA to punish organizations that promote diversity initiatives. Under the Trump administration, the DOJ has begun using the FCA to investigate and pursue claims against federal funding recipients who certify they are following civil rights laws, but are found to be involved in DEI activities that the administration considers to be illegal.

When pressed, Jenny did not confirm whether certain examples of DEI programs, such as a program to recruit more women into STEM fields, would be considered illegal. She pointed to DOJ guidance and stated that it is possible to run DEI programs without unlawfully discriminating.

“Your legal words, I’m sure, will not be very reassuring to some of these universities who have programs,” Bonamici said. “And what you’re talking about is really going to depend on how the DOJ determines what the university is using the dollars for, and going after entities for political reasons is not a limiting principle.”

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 26

Maybe a dumb suggestion, but is this just inverted? The high density in what I think is the Gobi Desert pretty much matches the hole here. www.researchgate.net/figure/Globa...

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 25

This is not a serious defense of academic independence.

Most significantly, the draft shows, Mottershead tried to inject language that raised doubt about the legitimacy of basic climate science, describing that science as “provisional” and adding that “great uncertainties remain.”

Ultimately, Mottershead did not convince the authors to adopt that specific text. “BP tried to cross the line repeatedly,” Pacala said in an interview. “They were constantly trying to push their agenda. We just didn’t do any of it.”

But several edits would survive, including one that couched emissions in the context of economic growth and another in which Mottershead suggested moving a punchy line from lower in the article up to the very top. All, Pacala says, were changes the researchers would have made anyway.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 25

"Chaps, I have had a go at re-writing the paper" is going to stick with me for a long time.

Letter from BP Climate adviser to Pacala and Socolow

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 24

I worked on this story for a year meme with "have been banging on about writing about the 'Trump administration' and not Trump w/r/t science policy

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 24

A bunch of spending for SBE, up to 38 million (avg. 67 million). Haven't checked to see if this is for existing grants or if there are a bunch of large new awards.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 24

Some new grants for the most beleaguered of directorates, but hard to say things are looking up. SBE has gotten a boost to 26 new grants (avg. 298), while EDU has gone up to 21 new grants (avg. 378).

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 24

NSF grantmaking update Two weeks ago (6/8) New grants: 1,471/4,407 — 33.4% of avg. Obligations: 1.70/2.52 billion — 67.4% of avg. Now (6/22) New grants: 1549/4481 — 32.6% of avg. Obligations: 1.8/2.82 billion — 63.8% of avg. Data from: grant-witness.us/funding_curv...

Cumulative number of new awards shows NSF is well behind historic pace.

NSF cumulative obligations show the agency was getting closer but is now behind.

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 23

Well and good but I don't understand how any reasonable methodology would produce a curve that levels off like this.

Graph of cumulative attacks on science over time

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 23

What a mess... pubpeer.com/publications...

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 18

Murkowski: "Normally we would reiterate our intent through the appropriations process by funding the system and including language prohibiting funds from being used for the dismantling. But time is of the essence ... Expedient measures were necessary." www.c-span.org/clip/us-sena...

Murkowski: I appreciate being on the floor with my colleague from Oregon and working on this very important Ocean Observatories Initiative. As he outlined, understanding what is happening in our oceans is so key. It’s so critical. It's not just about how it impacts the fish, and the habitat within our oceans, it's about the impact that our oceans have on the planet. Recognizing that when you see warming waters, that has impact—on the weather, the jet stream, understanding all of that. Understanding from the purposes of what it means from a — from an industry perspective. My state, and in the state of Oregon, also a state that has strong fisheries, it's important to understand the science so that we're making sound fisheries management decisions, sound for the fisheries and the resource itself, sound for the economy and those coastal communities that rely on them.

So good science is really important. As Senator Merkley has mentioned, we have an extraordinary system in place with this ocean observatory initiative. A network of 900 deep-sea

instruments that are providing real-time data to help monitor the ocean conditions, predict the extreme weather, protect the coastal communities and maritime industries. And these are all over our oceans. As the senator from Oregon has noted, the coastal endurance array is in the pacific northwest, there is an array that is in the gulf of alaska, Global Station Papa Array. This is 600 nautical miles off the coast, more than two and a half miles beneath the surface of the water. These are down deep, these are gathering information that’s hard to get and they are not only in the pacific, but we have the array that is situated between Greenland and Iceland. I was just out in that region and people were talking about the significance of the data that comes from this.

We have an extraordinary system that has been put in place and then you have an announcement that caught everyone by surprise. When the National Science Foundation said we're going to begin dismantling one of our most complex ocean monitoring systems. And this is all happening at a time when everybody's talking about El Niño and what that is going to bring in terms of the potential for extreme weather events.

This is not the time to turn off one of our most valuable scientific assets. So this is an investment that has been made. It represents, actually decades of investment, it makes the data publicly available so that every American, so whether you're a fisherman, a university researcher, our U.S. Coast guard who is performing rescue operations, they can all safely operate. So Congress has made really clear, we intend to maintain this cost-effective system by ensuring we have funding in our program in our annual appropriations bill, and enough senators and congressmen agreed it is a prudent use of tax dollars to do that. Normally we would reiterate our intent through the appropriations process by funding the system and including language prohibiting funds from being used for the

Dan Garisto@dangaristo· Jun 18

Here are Sen. Merkley's comments introducting the resolution. (Things can be a little rough with the transcription, but I've tried to clean up.) Also clipped a video, but it seems like easily embedding CSPAN videos to Bluesky is not a technology we possess in 2026. www.c-span.org/clip/us-sena...