At NIH, I told Jay that one of the reasons we needed a Clean Science, anti-ideology framework was to defend against these sorts of lawsuits. Unfortunately, he didn't listen. What's the issue? The issue is that leftists embed their ideology in research in ways that make it scientifically invalid, or otherwise inappropriate for taxpayer funding. They then leverage the results of this invalid research to advance their power and defeat conservatives and other non-leftists. They use complicit media to report false/invalid "findings", which affect policy and voter behavior. And they embed their ideology everywhere else, including the workplace, peppered with false claims about "the science" backing HR's claims on "implicit bias", "transphobia", "systemic racism", the harms of stereotyping, etc. The outcome: thousands of chemically sterilized kids, the dramatic reversal in perceptions of racism, toxic delusions about a "climate crisis", and thousands of leftist activists cosplaying as scientists subsidized by you, the taxpayer. It's a big mistake for Republicans and the Trump administration to not end this. NIH and NSF need to understand *validity* and in this context that means defining "ideology" and explaining how it can be embedded in research in inappropriate ways. It's not enough to point to a study and say "DEI!" or "woke!". No, that's not nearly good enough and it won't answer the complaints leftists make or accomplish anything in a courtroom. You have to use your words. You have to make a rigorous case for why "Ecological Momentary Assessment of Racial/Ethnic Microaggressions and Cannabis Use among Black Adults" (actual NIH grant) is an invalid embedding of a political ideology and that this embedding makes it scientifically invalid. I provisionally defined ideology for NIH purposes as "any construct that pertains to justice or oppression", and we can add that the "usage stems from a specific political ideology like leftism/liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc." All the MAGA-adjacent influencers commenting on biased science have so far been unable to drill into the problem. They're just ranting about bias at the journals, over and over, but we need real insight into the epistemological problem here. What's the nature of what leftists are doing? What do we call it? We need a taxonomy and a framework. We need to integrate applied epistemology and philosophy of science. Conservatives haven't funded that work and it's extremely important because this is how leftists win – they rig the game. They embed the ideological assumptions and constructs in the research from the start – "systemic racism" as real and as the cause of arbitrary outcomes unfavorable to certain groups (and they only think in terms of groups), "microaggressions", all their made-up, nonexistent x-phobia terms, Leftists are able to get away with sweeping empirical claims without evidence. No one at NIH or NSF or the journals stop them, because they're all controlled by leftists. Leftists are able to get away with trafficking in a cult ideology with ridiculous cult constructs and Soviet-style enforcement for the same reasons. With a framework, NIH can answer these lawsuits by saying "We define ideology, neutrally and objectively, as constructs that pertain to justice or oppression, especially where the usage stems from a specific political ideology like leftism/liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc. In this grant, they embed the new leftist construct of "microaggression", which asserts that various mundane acts like a white person denying that he's racist, someone advocating color blindness, or disputing that "systemic racism" against blacks exists currently and pervades all our institutions – itself a tenet of leftist ideology, so we're talking about simply disagreeing with leftism – are acts of aggression and oppression." Right now, NIH can't say that because they don't have a definition of ideology and they don't have a framework. Jay wouldn't implement anything. They're just winging it, and that's unlikely to work. As it stands, they're going to hand everything back to the left in two years, with no framework or deep reforms having been implemented. That would be an incredible waste.