Scott analyzes Ted Cruz's database of 'woke' NSF grants and finds that only 40% were actually woke, with many regular science grants included simply for having a mandatory diversity statement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes Ted Cruz's database of supposedly 'woke' NSF grants, sampling 100 grants at random. He finds that only 40% were actually woke, with another 20% borderline cases, and 40% completely unrelated to wokeness. Most non-woke grants appeared in the database because they included a seemingly mandatory sentence about helping minorities or women, likely added to satisfy grant requirements. Of the genuinely woke grants, only 10-20% were egregiously bad, while others were mostly benign STEM outreach programs. Scott argues that sorting genuine woke grants from regular science would be easy, taking only a week of work, and criticizes both the Biden administration for requiring diversity statements and Republicans for targeting legitimate research. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the results of the ACX Grants program, awarding funding to various projects and individuals across different fields. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the results of the ACX Grants program, which awarded funding to various projects and individuals across different fields. He provides details on the awardees, their projects, and the grant amounts. Scott also discusses the challenges of the grant-making process, acknowledges the help he received, and outlines future steps for the program. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes misleading media coverage of 'The High Quality Research Act', clarifying its actual content and arguing for a more nuanced debate on NSF funding priorities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes the media coverage of a new draft bill called 'The High Quality Research Act'. He points out that many news sources have misrepresented the bill's content, falsely claiming it would ban peer review or destroy the concept of facts. Scott clarifies that the bill actually aims to change the grant funding review process and prevent duplicate funding applications. He acknowledges legitimate concerns about the bill potentially restricting funding to 'practical' research, but argues that the debate should focus on whether the current NSF grant criteria need improvement, rather than on exaggerated claims about the bill's effects. Shorter summary