주요 콘텐츠로 건너뛰기
번역 진행 중 — 귀하의 언어 버전을 준비하는 동안 이 콘텐츠가 영어로 표시됩니다.
토론으로 돌아가기

Michael Kratsios: Trump's Science Agenda, Anti-Science Claims, Fauci's Damage, DEI & China

Politics
United States
August 25, 2026에 시작됨

(0:00) Michael Kratsios joins the show! (01:56) Is this administration anti-science? The Nature poll, DEI grants, and $8B down the drain (8:16) Climate science cuts: RCP 8.5 gets pulled and the "climate emergency" narrative collapses (13:45) $47B at NIH, Eroom's Law, and golden tickets: has American science stagnated? (22:24) Big bold bets: Genesis Mission, quantum by 2028, fusion by 2035, boots on the moon in '28 (34:04) The great race with China: $33B to $670B, and 7 out of 10 STEM PhDs are...

출처 기사

진술 추가 분석 0/5
Need to find a specific claim? Search all statements.
🗳️ Join the conversation
10 투표할 진술 • Your perspective shapes the analysis
📊 Progress to Consensus Analysis Need: 7+ participants, 20+ votes, 3+ votes per statement
Participants 0/7
Statements (10+ recommended) 10/10
Total Votes 0/20
💡 Progress updates live here. Final readiness is confirmed when all three requirements are met.

Your votes count

No account needed — your votes are saved and included in the consensus analysis. Create an account to track your voting history and add statements.

CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
The NIH's budget of $47 billion should be carefully evaluated to ensure it effectively advances public health.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
Science funding should prioritize projects with demonstrable societal benefits rather than speculative ventures.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
Engaging diverse communities in scientific research leads to more holistic and effective solutions to global challenges.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
American science is experiencing stagnation despite high funding levels, indicating a need for reform in research practices.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
The Trump administration's science agenda has prioritized economic interests over scientific integrity.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
The future of American leadership in science and technology relies on collaboration with international partners, including China.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
To advance its science agenda, the U.S. must balance innovation with ethical considerations and public accountability.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
DEI grants in science funding are essential for fostering diverse perspectives and innovation.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
The race with China in STEM fields necessitates increased investment in education and research in the United States.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM 게시자: admin • Aug 25, 2026
The portrayal of a 'climate emergency' is exaggerated and undermines public trust in scientific discourse.

번역 대기 중

Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 토론 보기
Be first to respond
Vote to see results

💡 How This Works

  • • Add Statements: Post claims or questions (10-500 characters)
  • • Vote: Agree, Disagree, or Unsure on each statement
  • • Respond: Add detailed pro/con responses with evidence
  • • Consensus: After enough participation, analysis reveals opinion groups and areas of agreement

Society Speaks is open and independent. Your support keeps civic discussion free from advertising and commercial influence.

Support us