Skip to content

OSTP Unveils Agency Data, AI Guidelines for ‘Gold Standard Science’

Technology
7 6 0
  • Automation, public data repositories, standardized metadata forms, and interoperable data-sharing platforms are some of the major pushes being made in guidance for Federal agencies looking to apply the Trump administration’s “gold standard science” objectives, according to guidance issued today by the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP).

    OSTP Director Michael Kratsios delivered the memo to Federal agencies on June 23 and said the guidance will assist agencies in applying an executive order from President Donald Trump on “Restoring Gold Standard Science” by ensuring “that science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.”

    That memo included methods of approaching science-related initiatives – namely those related to national security and energy innovation, according to the document – that would foster cross disciplinary collaboration and withstand scrutiny.

    “In an age of rapid technological progress and heightened public scrutiny, federally-funded and federally-performed science, and its use in Federal decision-making, must be beyond reproach,” reads the document.

    To support this goal, OSTP said that agencies should encourage depositing raw data and code in publicly accessible repositories to facilitate reproducibility. Other data-related pushes include requiring grant applications to include data sharing plans, and standardizing metadata formats and data-sharing platforms across agencies.

    When introducing the concept of gold standard science in May, Kratsios zeroed in on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles in scientific fields, claiming that inclusive efforts pushed by DEI pose an “existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.”

    Kratsios said that the “first step to restoring trust in America’s scientific establishment, and rebuilding a strong foundation for breakthrough discoveries, is a return to Gold Standard Science.”

  • Automation, public data repositories, standardized metadata forms, and interoperable data-sharing platforms are some of the major pushes being made in guidance for Federal agencies looking to apply the Trump administration’s “gold standard science” objectives, according to guidance issued today by the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP).

    OSTP Director Michael Kratsios delivered the memo to Federal agencies on June 23 and said the guidance will assist agencies in applying an executive order from President Donald Trump on “Restoring Gold Standard Science” by ensuring “that science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.”

    That memo included methods of approaching science-related initiatives – namely those related to national security and energy innovation, according to the document – that would foster cross disciplinary collaboration and withstand scrutiny.

    “In an age of rapid technological progress and heightened public scrutiny, federally-funded and federally-performed science, and its use in Federal decision-making, must be beyond reproach,” reads the document.

    To support this goal, OSTP said that agencies should encourage depositing raw data and code in publicly accessible repositories to facilitate reproducibility. Other data-related pushes include requiring grant applications to include data sharing plans, and standardizing metadata formats and data-sharing platforms across agencies.

    When introducing the concept of gold standard science in May, Kratsios zeroed in on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles in scientific fields, claiming that inclusive efforts pushed by DEI pose an “existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.”

    Kratsios said that the “first step to restoring trust in America’s scientific establishment, and rebuilding a strong foundation for breakthrough discoveries, is a return to Gold Standard Science.”

    science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.

    Gaslight

    Obstruct

    Project

  • Automation, public data repositories, standardized metadata forms, and interoperable data-sharing platforms are some of the major pushes being made in guidance for Federal agencies looking to apply the Trump administration’s “gold standard science” objectives, according to guidance issued today by the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP).

    OSTP Director Michael Kratsios delivered the memo to Federal agencies on June 23 and said the guidance will assist agencies in applying an executive order from President Donald Trump on “Restoring Gold Standard Science” by ensuring “that science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.”

    That memo included methods of approaching science-related initiatives – namely those related to national security and energy innovation, according to the document – that would foster cross disciplinary collaboration and withstand scrutiny.

    “In an age of rapid technological progress and heightened public scrutiny, federally-funded and federally-performed science, and its use in Federal decision-making, must be beyond reproach,” reads the document.

    To support this goal, OSTP said that agencies should encourage depositing raw data and code in publicly accessible repositories to facilitate reproducibility. Other data-related pushes include requiring grant applications to include data sharing plans, and standardizing metadata formats and data-sharing platforms across agencies.

    When introducing the concept of gold standard science in May, Kratsios zeroed in on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles in scientific fields, claiming that inclusive efforts pushed by DEI pose an “existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.”

    Kratsios said that the “first step to restoring trust in America’s scientific establishment, and rebuilding a strong foundation for breakthrough discoveries, is a return to Gold Standard Science.”

    So they want to make research data sensitive to national security publicly available?

  • So they want to make research data sensitive to national security publicly available?

    Nah, they want to put whatever data they want out that serves their purpose, regardless if it's the truth or not. Whatever they say they're trying to protect, that's what they're going to violate.

  • science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.

    Gaslight

    Obstruct

    Project

    Every accusation is actually an admission

  • Automation, public data repositories, standardized metadata forms, and interoperable data-sharing platforms are some of the major pushes being made in guidance for Federal agencies looking to apply the Trump administration’s “gold standard science” objectives, according to guidance issued today by the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP).

    OSTP Director Michael Kratsios delivered the memo to Federal agencies on June 23 and said the guidance will assist agencies in applying an executive order from President Donald Trump on “Restoring Gold Standard Science” by ensuring “that science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.”

    That memo included methods of approaching science-related initiatives – namely those related to national security and energy innovation, according to the document – that would foster cross disciplinary collaboration and withstand scrutiny.

    “In an age of rapid technological progress and heightened public scrutiny, federally-funded and federally-performed science, and its use in Federal decision-making, must be beyond reproach,” reads the document.

    To support this goal, OSTP said that agencies should encourage depositing raw data and code in publicly accessible repositories to facilitate reproducibility. Other data-related pushes include requiring grant applications to include data sharing plans, and standardizing metadata formats and data-sharing platforms across agencies.

    When introducing the concept of gold standard science in May, Kratsios zeroed in on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles in scientific fields, claiming that inclusive efforts pushed by DEI pose an “existential threat to the real diversity of thought that forms the foundation of the scientific community.”

    Kratsios said that the “first step to restoring trust in America’s scientific establishment, and rebuilding a strong foundation for breakthrough discoveries, is a return to Gold Standard Science.”

    So the trump regime still hates trans people and denies climate change, to the point of vehemently working to deny the existence of both. Got it.

  • science is no longer manipulated or misused to justify political ends.

    Gaslight

    Obstruct

    Project

    GOP = Group of Pedophiles

  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 277 Stimmen
    68 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    A
    intellectual property is grotesque. under no circumstances a creator should be barred from his creation. if shit like that happens I'd rather there not be any intellectual property at all
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 81 Stimmen
    44 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    L
    Hear me out, Eliza. It'll be equally useless and for orders of magnitude less cost. And no one will mistakenly or fraudulently call it AI.
  • 51 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.worldJ
    It is a possibility. Thanks for the input!
  • 54 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    fauxpseudo@lemmy.worldF
    Nobody ever wants to talk about white collar on white collar crime.
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    122 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.
  • Discord alternatives?

    Technology technology
    4
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    R
    XMPP is a standard and doesn't have mandated UIs. If you want a voice chat, then Mumble. It's very narrow, just for games.