foxnews.com
NASEM's $200 Million Taxpayer Funding and High Executive Salaries Under Scrutiny
In 2023, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) received $200.6 million in taxpayer funding, while top executives earned over $1 million annually; NASEM used this funding for studies and workshops on various issues, including those promoting liberal causes; the organization's funding decreased to 58% government in 2024 after closing its diversity and inclusion office due to a Trump administration executive order.
- How have recent policy changes, such as Trump's executive order, impacted NASEM's operations and funding priorities?
- NASEM's funding allocation reveals a significant reliance on taxpayer money to conduct studies and workshops on diverse issues. High executive salaries, coupled with the organization's focus on left-leaning initiatives like addressing structural racism in STEM, raise concerns about resource distribution and potential political bias. The recent closure of NASEM's Office of Diversity and Inclusion in response to Trump's executive order highlights the political influence on its operations.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of NASEM's funding model and its alignment with specific political agendas regarding future research and public policy?
- The interplay between NASEM's federal funding, high executive compensation, and its promotion of specific social agendas raises questions about transparency and accountability. Future implications include potential scrutiny of funding practices and the broader debate on the role of government-funded scientific organizations in shaping public policy. The organization's response to the recent executive order suggests a potential shift in priorities, though the long-term effects remain unclear.
- What is the extent of NASEM's reliance on taxpayer funding, and how does this funding relate to its high executive salaries and its focus on social justice initiatives?
- The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) received $200.6 million in taxpayer funding in 2023, with top executives earning over $1 million annually. This funding supported various initiatives, including events focused on climate change, racism, and health equity, some of which promoted liberal causes. The organization's 2024 government funding decreased to 58%.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's headline and introduction immediately frame NASEM in a negative light, focusing on taxpayer funds and high salaries before mentioning their work. The use of phrases like "left-wing initiatives" and the repeated emphasis on funding for DEI initiatives shape the reader's perception before presenting any counterarguments. The sequencing of information, presenting the salaries and specific DEI-related projects before a general statement of the organization's overall work, creates a biased narrative flow that emphasizes negative aspects.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "left-wing initiatives," "liberal causes," and repeatedly highlights spending on DEI as wasteful. These terms carry negative connotations and lack neutrality. More neutral alternatives could include "initiatives related to social justice," "projects focused on equity," and "investments in diversity and inclusion." The repeated emphasis on the costs of DEI programs, while not inherently biased, presents a financial framing that shapes reader perception.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on NASEM's spending on DEI initiatives and high salaries, potentially omitting other significant uses of their funding and the overall impact of their research. It also doesn't fully explore the context of the federal government's requests for studies and the relationship between those requests and NASEM's activities. The article's emphasis on specific events related to race and equity may overshadow other aspects of NASEM's work, creating an incomplete picture. The lack of information on the potential benefits of NASEM's work related to climate change, health equity, and other social issues, combined with a focus on expenses, contributes to a one-sided narrative.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing NASEM's activities as solely either wasteful spending on DEI initiatives or valuable contributions to the economy and national security. This ignores the possibility that NASEM's work on social issues could also contribute positively to these national goals, and that the value of the work conducted may outweigh the costs. The focus on high salaries without providing context or comparables in similar organizations strengthens this false dichotomy.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights NASEM's initiatives focused on addressing racial discrimination and health inequities. The organization has conducted studies and workshops examining structural racism in STEM and healthcare, aiming to promote racial equity and improve health outcomes for marginalized communities. These efforts directly contribute to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by tackling systemic inequalities and promoting inclusivity.