×
‘Ballerina’ review: Does the ‘John Wick’ spinoff hit its target?

‘Ballerina’ review: Does the ‘John Wick’ spinoff hit its target?

There’s an exciting 20-minute stretch midway through Ballerina — or From the World of John Wick: Ballerina — that expands the John Wick mythos. These scenes swerve past the series’ expectations and break new ground in delightful ways. Unfortunately, what comes before and after is a Wick facsimile through and through, even though the film repeatedly insists it’s showing you something novel.

This is the key issue with the Ana de Armas-led action spinoff. For most of its 125-minute runtime, Ballerina remains torn between adhering to the tenets of its franchise mothership and charting its own course. There’s some fun to be found in the movie, but it’s also severely disjointed in obvious ways that reflect its tumultuous production (Ballerina began shooting so long ago that it features the final screen appearance of Lance Reddick, who died in early 2023). The result is a film that ends up less than the sum of its scattered parts, despite its numerous explosions, headshots, and vicious stabbings.

What is Ballerina about?

Ana de Armas in “Ballerina.”
Credit: Larry D. Horricks for Lionsgate.

After her father is killed by a mysterious cult, led by a man named the Chancellor (Gabriel Byrne), young Eve (Victoria Comte, a spitting image of de Armas) is rescued from their clutches by Wick series mainstay Winston (Ian McShane), owner of the assassins-only Continental Hotel and longtime ally of John Wick. He delivers Eve to the ruthless trainer known as the Director (Anjelica Huston), who last appeared in John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum as the head of the Ruska Roma, a Belarusian ballet school and crime syndicate tied to John Wick’s origins. Here, she serves as a stern headmistress overseeing Eve’s ballet training — a skill she learns alongside fists and bullets, though it doesn’t really come in handy — and her decade-long transformation into an assassin-for-hire.

Ballerina has a distinct overlap with Parabellum, in that we see Eve briefly cross paths with John Wick himself (Keanu Reeves, in all his grunting, exasperated glory), a.k.a the notorious Baba Yaga. The duo’s fleeting exchange establishes them as diametrically opposed archetypes. Wick wants to leave behind this world of contract killers — much as he does in his four-part series, after he exacts his puppy-inspired vengeance. The starstruck Eve, meanwhile, desperately wants to enter Wick’s world of assassinations, so she can exact her own revenge on her father’s killers.

Ana de Armas and Keanu Reeves in

Ana de Armas and Keanu Reeves in “Ballerina.”
Credit: Courtesy of Lionsgate.

To add to this nominal differentiation, Eve repeatedly fails tests involving hand-to-hand combat and close-quarters gun-fu, shot (by cinematographer Romain Lacourbas) and choreographed (by a large team of stunt coordinators, many of them John Wick veterans) in the traditionally fluid John Wick style. That is, until her assassin mentor Nogi (Sharon Duncan-Brewster) commands Eve to fight on her own terms, rather than letting her male counterparts dictate their sparring. “Fight like a girl,” she tells Eve with a wry smile, before dropping hints about using agility and intellect instead of raw strength. A lightbulb seems to go off in the ballerina’s head. However, what follows during each combat and shooting simulation is the exact same blocking and choreography as before (only with a few added kicks to the groin).

It’s the first of several instances where the dialogue attempts to lay claim to a brand new path for the series, while the action plays out like a John Wick pastiche: the same Judo takedowns and quick clip-emptying, shot with the same verve and atmosphere, but edited with far less impact. As Eve is sent on her first mission to a nightclub, the neon pink and blue-hued setting is practically ripped from previous Wick films, down to the action being backdropped by the slow-motion writhing of unbothered dancers. Scene after scene, these uncannily familiar elements play host to lesser versions of fights we’ve already seen, but assembled with less finesse.

The pieces of Ballerina rarely fit together

Ana de Armas in

“Ballerina” is full of inconsistencies.
Credit: Murray Close

When the plot finally gets moving, and Eve begins tracking down information on her target — leading her to an alluring new assassin with an oddly truncated role, played by Norman Reedus — Ballerina becomes torn between motivations. This results in de Armas never having enough pathos to feel worthy of this particular, grief-steeped series — for John Wick, the fact that “it was never just a puppy” is always clear.

Mashable Top Stories

On one hand, Eve is driven by vengeance and deep-seated rage. On the other hand, her tale quickly becomes entangled with that of a young girl with whom she empathizes, one who becomes a kidnapping target for the cult like Eve once was. However, this symbol of Eve’s lost innocence doesn’t complicate her trajectory in any way, or have any real impact on the plot. In fact, it’s just one of several inconsistencies that makes Ballerina such a strange film to watch.

Norman Reedus

Norman Reedus gets an oddly truncated role.
Credit: Larry D. Horricks for Lionsgate.

Byrne’s Chancellor is, for all intents and purposes, the movie’s key antagonist from the word go, since he leads the interrogation and slaying of Eve’s father. However, young Eve is distanced from her villain. She never sees his face in the prologue, an oddly specific visual information which is clarified when they finally come face to face and she doesn’t recognize him. His actions ought to make Eve’s mission deeply personal, but it’s unclear if she ever finds out who he really is, beyond being the leader of an organization she hopes to bring down. In the process, she’s kept at an arm’s length from the most involving and tragic parts of her own story. 

There’s a lack of urgency to the movie at times, in part because of these dramatic inconsistencies. Its action scenes don’t feel nearly as personal as they should, both in terms of what Eve is trying to achieve, and in the context of how her scenes are staged. Her movements never feel like extensions of her character; her choreography is only ever mapped onto the existing body language Wick exhibits in the rest of the series. Despite the film’s title, the one skill set that differentiates Eve from her male counterparts — her ballet training — is somehow never put to use, even during a fight scene on ice that requires finding balance. And the running thread about the act of killing weighing on her conscience is also swiftly dropped. 

Add to this the fact that several fight scenes lack a coherent sense of geography and space between the characters, and what you’re left with is a disorienting movie that never fully clicks. This often feels like the product of Ballerina‘s many reshoots — several months’ worth, reported to have been spearheaded by John Wick series helmer Chad Stahelski, rather than credited director Len Wiseman — whose seams show in occasional moments of janky ADR (Automatic Dialogue Replacement), and unclean digital face replacement to hide de Armas’ stunt doubles.

Ballerina works best when it isn’t John Wick

Lance Reddick, Ana de Armas, and Ian McShane in

The late Lance Reddick makes his final screen appearance in “Ballerina.”
Credit: Larry D. Horricks.

There’s an imaginative streak to some of the action in Ballerina, from its Tchaikovsky- and Vivaldi-influenced soundtrack and score (by composers Tyler Bates and Joel J. Richard), to the comically excessive presence of flamethrowers and hand grenades. But its action scenes are so awash in cartoonish digital effects that fly in the face of the grounded, tactile, blood-squib-heavy productions that made Reeves’ versions so damn thrilling. The film is at its weakest when it’s trying to be a John Wick sequel — which, unfortunately, is the majority of its runtime.

However, there’s a turn about midway through that feels unlike any Wick movie in its setting, theme, and choreography, leading to a stretch of action and story that feels almost worth the price of admission. The hour-long wait for this sequence can be frustrating, but when Eve catches up to the cult’s headquarters — located in a quaint, snowy mountain town — the film zigzags in raucous ways.

Ana de Armas in

Wait for the midway turn.
Credit: Murray Close for Lionsgate.

Part of the fun of the Wick films is how they reveal seedy metropolitan underbellies to have secret criminal entanglements. This doesn’t happen much in Ballerina, making Eve’s initial night-time missions through crowded cities feel like mechanical, soulless retreads. However, her daylight rendezvous to the peaceful mountainside goes off the rails for equal and opposite reasons, as everyday Samaritans — from parents and tourists, to small business owners — become part of the action in unexpected ways. Even the so-called normal life that Wick craves, and that Eve has intentionally left behind, harbors gloomy secrets, out in the open.

It’s a ridiculously bleak turn that yields some of the series’ most entertaining action yet (involving several household items), though it doesn’t last long before being toppled by clunkily written melodrama, whose twists and turns aren’t given nearly enough weight or time to land. The preceding set pieces are so wildly entertaining that it’s hard not to feel robbed of some truly inventive action filmmaking when they’re eventually — and inevitably — derailed by a half-baked story.

By the end, what little individuality the film contains is entirely subsumed by the larger franchise. De Armas even ends up dressed in John Wick chic before the credits roll. But rather than playing like an organic character choice, it resembles flimsy cosplay — an unfortunate metaphor for Ballerina as a whole.

Ballerina hits theaters June 6.

Source link
#Ballerina #review #John #Wick #spinoff #hit #target

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.


$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon
                                                            SAVE 0: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just ,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or 0 off its list price of ,199.
    
    
    
        
                                        
                                        
                    
                                                    ,499
                                                             at Amazon
                                                        ,199
                                                                                         Save 0
                                                                        
                
                                        *with on-page coupon*
                    
        
    

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X. As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just ,499 from its usual ,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.
    Mashable Deals
        
            
            
            
            
            
                By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
            
        
    

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation. 

        
            Mashable Deals
        
        
            
                            
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                        By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
                    
                
                        
        
    
If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s 0 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.


$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.


$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space researchThe Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary SocietyFor more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”— Casey DreierThis is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Georgina TorbetCloseGeorgina TorbetPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Georgina TorbetNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceSpaceCloseSpacePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Space#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space research

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

Post Comment