The text of the required questionnaire has been posted. OMB's estimate is that it will take 30 minutes to complete. Looking at it, I'd put the time to do any sort of accurate response at days/weeks. Applied at a university level, none of the Australian schools will meet the requirements.
The Australian media seems to be moving towards describing this as an "America First" fallout -- Trump doesn't want to invest money in any other countries. My knee-jerk reaction would be, "US staff for all of NASA's network terminals in Australia are expelled. Ditto for DOD's deep space radar work. The US Navy's visiting privileges are revoked. We'll get back to you about whether we're going to return any equipment." But I'm not a nice person.
When you are a US researcher writing a proposal to study coral reef bleaching on a global scale, you collaborate with some Australian group because of the Great Barrier Reef.
When you are a US researcher doing climate change modeling and need to improve how you handle atmosphere/ocean interfaces in that part of the world, you collaborate with some Australian group.
When you are a US radio astronomer with a project that requires certain continuous observations, you collaborate with the Australians who build and operate world-class telescopes from a unique global position.
When you are a US researcher in toxicology looking at venom chemistry that leads in certain directions, you collaborate with some Australian experts on the poisonous species Down Under.
When you are a US battery chemistry researcher and the work leads you into certain reactions and the best group on that is in Adelaide, you collaborate with them (if you can get them interested).
The US federal government funds an incredible array of R&D topics. If you want to argue that the federal government should confine itself to the D, and only go outside the US when there's no other choice, say that.
Research is much more global these days, with lots of collaboration across borders.
In some fields, Australia has an inherent advantage. Far southern oceans, for example. Their interest in that is rather more "personal" than ours. Or their view of the southern sky. Northrup Grumman is spending $341M in federal funds for a facility for the Space Force's Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability in Australia. I'm sure Australia is getting a nice chunk of funding for signal-processing R&D out of that.
The US federal government is spending $201B on R&D in FY2025. The $600M that is being spent in Australia is 0.3% of that. The Australian federal government is spending $14.4B on R&D this fiscal year (quite comparable on a per capita basis). Would you be as surprised if you found out that $43M of that was being spent to fund work in US laboratories?
Trump and China are negotiating how to settle the issue of TSMC, the only company in the world that can fabricate integrated circuits at, for example, 2nm scale. Musk is representing the US tech bros' interests.
In mathematics, there's a thing called an "existence proof." Such a proof typically tells you that for a particular type of problem a solution exists. It tells you nothing about how to find the solution.
A judge saying, "Bailiff! Take Pam Bondi into custody and hold her for 30 days for contempt!" strikes me as something similar. The authority exists. It says nothing about how to actually take Ms. Bondi into custody if, eg, the US Marshals Service stands between her and the bailiff. Or (assuming success on the custody bit) where the bailiff could hold her and provide the legally required food/health care/etc.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
More realistically, the question would be, "Do you do battery chemistry research with BYD money?" And the answer is that of course they do.
The text of the required questionnaire has been posted. OMB's estimate is that it will take 30 minutes to complete. Looking at it, I'd put the time to do any sort of accurate response at days/weeks. Applied at a university level, none of the Australian schools will meet the requirements.
The Australian media seems to be moving towards describing this as an "America First" fallout -- Trump doesn't want to invest money in any other countries. My knee-jerk reaction would be, "US staff for all of NASA's network terminals in Australia are expelled. Ditto for DOD's deep space radar work. The US Navy's visiting privileges are revoked. We'll get back to you about whether we're going to return any equipment." But I'm not a nice person.
When you are a US researcher writing a proposal to study coral reef bleaching on a global scale, you collaborate with some Australian group because of the Great Barrier Reef.
When you are a US researcher doing climate change modeling and need to improve how you handle atmosphere/ocean interfaces in that part of the world, you collaborate with some Australian group.
When you are a US radio astronomer with a project that requires certain continuous observations, you collaborate with the Australians who build and operate world-class telescopes from a unique global position.
When you are a US researcher in toxicology looking at venom chemistry that leads in certain directions, you collaborate with some Australian experts on the poisonous species Down Under.
When you are a US battery chemistry researcher and the work leads you into certain reactions and the best group on that is in Adelaide, you collaborate with them (if you can get them interested).
The US federal government funds an incredible array of R&D topics. If you want to argue that the federal government should confine itself to the D, and only go outside the US when there's no other choice, say that.
Research is much more global these days, with lots of collaboration across borders.
In some fields, Australia has an inherent advantage. Far southern oceans, for example. Their interest in that is rather more "personal" than ours. Or their view of the southern sky. Northrup Grumman is spending $341M in federal funds for a facility for the Space Force's Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability in Australia. I'm sure Australia is getting a nice chunk of funding for signal-processing R&D out of that.
The US federal government is spending $201B on R&D in FY2025. The $600M that is being spent in Australia is 0.3% of that. The Australian federal government is spending $14.4B on R&D this fiscal year (quite comparable on a per capita basis). Would you be as surprised if you found out that $43M of that was being spent to fund work in US laboratories?
Trump and China are negotiating how to settle the issue of TSMC, the only company in the world that can fabricate integrated circuits at, for example, 2nm scale. Musk is representing the US tech bros' interests.
In mathematics, there's a thing called an "existence proof." Such a proof typically tells you that for a particular type of problem a solution exists. It tells you nothing about how to find the solution.
A judge saying, "Bailiff! Take Pam Bondi into custody and hold her for 30 days for contempt!" strikes me as something similar. The authority exists. It says nothing about how to actually take Ms. Bondi into custody if, eg, the US Marshals Service stands between her and the bailiff. Or (assuming success on the custody bit) where the bailiff could hold her and provide the legally required food/health care/etc.