>I can't wait for science-illiterate politicians to take this ('Look at what YCombinator is saying!') and say we should defund science. This is an extremely hy

>I can't wait for science-illiterate politicians to take this ('Look at what YCombinator is saying!') and say we should defund science. This is an extremely hyperbolic thing to say. While I don't think that in this economy spending levels for science need to be decreased, reducing spending won't be "dangerous". I don't even know what "threat" you're imagining is so important that reducing science spending is necessary. This article is actually spot on, from my and my partner's experiences in PhD programs. The field is saturated with people and everyone is trying to stake their claim. Pressure is high not to get scooped, frontiers are small and hard to find, and most progress is very small increments which take lots of time and funding to accomplish. I think the money is fine, but the number of PhDs awarded needs to decrease. Important discoveries nowadays take lots of time and very dedicated people, but the system is set up to incentivize quickly nabbing low hanging fruit. It's rare that I attend a PhD defense where the contribution is anything but a baby step forward.