Out With the Old, But In with the What?
It's no longer clear what social security decisions will be based on
Disclaimer: This post was written by Dr. Andrew Rosenberg in his personal capacity and not on behalf of any organization or entity. The views expressed herein are Dr. Rosenberg’s and his alone.
When doomscrolling through the morning news as I do too often, I read yet another article about Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) destructive assault on federal agencies. Last week that included a Washington Post article on massive staff reductions, program cancellations, and related disruptions at the Social Security Administration.
Yes, I know, SciLight is largely a science policy site, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) isn’t known as a science agency. However, the following description of the approach being taken there was eye-opening to this scientist. [Full disclosure: I will be on Social Security in a couple of months].
The acting head of the SSA, Leland Dudek, was meeting with senior SSA staff and advocates for key groups that Social Security serves, including disabled Americans. Mr. Dudek was recently placed into the job of heading this huge and hugely important agency that directly serves 73 million Americans. Until recently, he was a mid-level staffer at the SSA, with no real management experience. Until he was placed on leave for working with DOGE without authorization. And lo and behold, President Trump noticed that news and made him acting head of the agency. I am reminded again of a very useful quote from Mark Twain, “The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to be credible.”
So where is the connection to science? The Washington Post story relayed this statement from Mr. Dudek: “The old ways of setting goals, doing studies, discussion, getting information and data before making decisions are gone. Those in charge now will make mistakes, but I need to move them in a direction that is best for SSA”, he said, and asked the advocates for their support.
It is hard to know what “old ways” he is referring to. But I am struggling with how one makes smart decisions without knowing what goal a decision is intended to address. Without gathering and analyzing data and information in some structured way. And what the heck are the new ways?
To my mind, Mr. Dudek’s statement does pretty well to capture the approach DOGE and this Administration is taking on matters that will impact all of us in some way – for better or worse. Forget about engaging in thoughtful discussion about actions and impacts; forget about looking at data and information and doing an analysis to help guide decisions. Just jump in, break things, like agencies, programs, and people, and figure out what to do after everything is broken.
DOGE doesn’t do analysis before thousands of people are fired. They don’t know what those people do or why. DOGE doesn’t have any discussion or engagement with affected people or get any information before closing down programs, departments or facilities. They shut things down and then seem to wait for someone to let them know that pandemic monitoring or nuclear security are, how you might say, critical!
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. But as the entire tech industry and really virtually all economic activity is based on science in one way or another, it seems that there might be reasonable acceptance that “doing studies, discussion, getting information and data before making decisions” is a sensible and worthwhile approach, old as it might be.
So, I must ask, if not that, then what is the alternative? A crystal ball? A Ouji board?
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!
If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:
If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com
Thanks for this clear, chilling example of how DOGE's "move fast and break things" playbook is the antithesis of careful scientific work. That work underpins the spectacular progress in human well-being and the rapid advancement of knowledge needed to keep the climate window wide enough for Earth's living creatures to thrive. These are goals I value. They're nowhere to be found in the Project 2025 blueprint for this administration. Is the juice worth the squeeze? How can they possibly know? Their cavileer disregard for potentially irreversible consequences stuns me. The Mark Twain quote, “The difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to be credible” perfectly captures the disorienting craziness of Trump 2.0. You'd think someone with 14 children would have more care for their future.