With all due respect all of it does show, to me, it will hurt efforts. First, many grants being cut are being cut because they had a DEI component - which was mandated by the grant. Thus those scientists who obeyed their mandate got their funds frozen or cut. Note I said DEI component, NOT research on DEI (although some of that seems to have been cut). It was still research on radar, machine learning, rocket propulsion, etc, but they needed to seek out underrepresented people to assist (not drive) the work. Thus killing work on those topics is not helping you develop a system to shoot down ICBMs.
I will also gently add that any mandate in the election is irrelevant to the science. If this was a mandate from the people in a fairly narrow election, it will severely harm the science (just as mandates for tariffs tanked the stock/ bond market). Once you get scientists worried about what they do or say then you get shit science (btw, same applies to purity tests on the left too). The commies and the nazis found this out quite quickly.
Thus, shit science produces shit results. This is an immutable fact. If they cut a brilliant scientist because of a tweet then they are being beyond stupid. Tons of research on group think going back to the 1980s shows that to be true. In particular when it gets severe enough that people self-censor, even worse.
The basic science leading to applied science leading to specific innovations pipeline is one of the main reasons the USA had dominated the globe.
I agree with you that we both want a system that will work. But i think wed both agree that setting up obstacles so as to exclude some of your best and brightest is what kills innovation, at worst, or slows it, at best.
I hope I'm wrong (as you do too lol).
