5 ms·

Weird that nobody has mentioned this yet: The article claims that Prof. Edwards spent $147k from his discretionary research funds and personal funds. He's sti

by olympus 11y ago

Weird that nobody has mentioned this yet: The article claims that Prof. Edwards spent $147k from his discretionary research funds and personal funds. He's still a good guy and has probably used a non-trivial amount of his own money, but it's not like he had to pull all of it out of his bank account. Discretionary research funds are given to researchers as money for them to spend on whatever research they find interesting. It's kind of like 3M's 20% time. The article doesn't mention how much of the $147k came from his research money and how much came from his pocket book. Why? Because it's not as sensational to find out that this guy (who is a tenured professor at a big school) put up $125k of research money and $22k of his own. I don't know what the actual numbers are but I wouldn't be surprised if he put up less than $50k of his own money and had the vast majority come from research funds, considering his history (wikipedia claims he received a $450k grant in 2011 from the EPA to study lead and copper in the water). Again, I'm not saying he's a fraud. He probably still put up a decent chunk himself. He did take out a mortgage on his house, but it doesn't mean that he put 100% of the value of his house towards this crisis. All I'm saying is don't get caught up in all the sensationalism.

vermooten 11y ago
Pleased with yourself?
hellofunk 11y ago
>All I'm saying is don't get caught up in all the sensationalism. I think it's pretty sensational that he did this, regardless of the exact details. It's all money he could have spent on something else, and instead he uncovered something critical to the lives of many.
pinktennisballs 11y ago
Article never claimed it was all his personal money
mnglkhn2 11y ago
You should try and see how easy (as in NOT at all) it is for a researcher to get research funds. Once (s)he gets them it is like new lease on life. Without such funds you have very slim chances on progressing. So, I would say it is a big deal that he committed his research funds to do this. It is curious as in why only his personal money would make his effort valiant!
pavornyoh 11y ago
I don't know what the actual numbers are but I wouldn't be surprised if he put up less than $50k of his own money and had the vast majority come from research funds, considering his history (wikipedia claims he received a $450k grant in 2011 from the EPA to study lead and copper in the water). Whether or not he put $2k or $50k is not what we should be discussing but rather, the moral imperative to bring this important matter to the forefront to save thousands of lives..
sremani 11y ago
This post is disconcerting and epitome of HN Critical thinking gone mad. So, how much is fine, is it OK to spend 10K, 20K or 50K, 100K from personal funds? The research money most likely is covering the Research Lab costs. The RAs of the lab put the money from their pockets. HN crowd has attracted this thankless-savant grade find the hole in the story types, no good deed goes unpunished.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 11y ago
Several replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962782 mentioned it about 1 hour before you posted. (inaccurate + convenient characterizations of existing comments are a pet peeve, sorry)
- olympus 11y ago
  Several replies? Only one person addresses discretionary research funds. Every other commenter quotes the article but is focused on the subject of that thread (mistaking volunteer hours for money spent). MaggieL wrote: > So...how much research money was within his discretionary budget? I wasn't going to reply, but couldn't pass this one up. Inaccurate characterizations might be a pet peeve of yours, but apparently that doesn't prevent hypocrisy.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I think directly quoting those few words meets the bar set by 'mentioned'. If it was lost in a longer quote maybe not, but when there are 2 sentences quoted and 1 of them is the statement in question...
cjbprime 11y ago
The fact that he took out a mortgage on his personal home for this is enough to convince the rest of us that he went way above and beyond in order to carry out the research. Calm the cynicism.

by olympus 11y ago

vermooten 11y ago

Pleased with yourself?

hellofunk 11y ago

>All I'm saying is don't get caught up in all the sensationalism. I think it's pretty sensational that he did this, regardless of the exact details. It's all money he could have spent on something else, and instead he uncovered something critical to the lives of many.

pinktennisballs 11y ago

Article never claimed it was all his personal money

mnglkhn2 11y ago

You should try and see how easy (as in NOT at all) it is for a researcher to get research funds. Once (s)he gets them it is like new lease on life. Without such funds you have very slim chances on progressing. So, I would say it is a big deal that he committed his research funds to do this. It is curious as in why only his personal money would make his effort valiant!

pavornyoh 11y ago

I don't know what the actual numbers are but I wouldn't be surprised if he put up less than $50k of his own money and had the vast majority come from research funds, considering his history (wikipedia claims he received a $450k grant in 2011 from the EPA to study lead and copper in the water). Whether or not he put $2k or $50k is not what we should be discussing but rather, the moral imperative to bring this important matter to the forefront to save thousands of lives..

sremani 11y ago

This post is disconcerting and epitome of HN Critical thinking gone mad. So, how much is fine, is it OK to spend 10K, 20K or 50K, 100K from personal funds? The research money most likely is covering the Research Lab costs. The RAs of the lab put the money from their pockets. HN crowd has attracted this thankless-savant grade find the hole in the story types, no good deed goes unpunished.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 11y ago

Several replies to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962782 mentioned it about 1 hour before you posted. (inaccurate + convenient characterizations of existing comments are a pet peeve, sorry)

olympus 11y ago
Several replies? Only one person addresses discretionary research funds. Every other commenter quotes the article but is focused on the subject of that thread (mistaking volunteer hours for money spent). MaggieL wrote: > So...how much research money was within his discretionary budget? I wasn't going to reply, but couldn't pass this one up. Inaccurate characterizations might be a pet peeve of yours, but apparently that doesn't prevent hypocrisy.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I think directly quoting those few words meets the bar set by 'mentioned'. If it was lost in a longer quote maybe not, but when there are 2 sentences quoted and 1 of them is the statement in question...

cjbprime 11y ago

The fact that he took out a mortgage on his personal home for this is enough to convince the rest of us that he went way above and beyond in order to carry out the research. Calm the cynicism.