//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
Profile
Loading...
Professor of planetary science at Johns Hopkins. Titan’s biggest fan. Pomeranian wrangler. Runner. Love many, trust few, always paddle your own canoe. She/her. sarahhorst.com Planetdr.26 on signal
Sarah Hörst
Loading...
More changes at the NSF, this time to elevate certain (often benign) conflicts-of-interest to the point of disqualifying reviewers from serving on entire panels. A nice write-up from Dan, which includes some quotes from Bluesky's 74th most popular astrophysicist.
It's hard not to see this as a further attack on expertise. Currently, program officers scrupulously check for conflicts, double check with panelists, and reviewers aren't in the room for discussion of proposals where they're conflicted. This feels sufficient for ensuring conflicts aren't a problem.