5 ms·

Why? Would this be more interesting if they were in the UK?

OJFord 2y ago
Kind of, in the sense that it sounds like a global news headline, vs. 'University of Exeter researchers find [...]' published by exeter.ac.uk, on this globally read site.
- lemarchr 2y ago
  It's global news to me. Hello from Australia! Edit: Ah wait, I think I get what you mean. By "global news" you mean it's been deemed worthy of sharing to an international audience by media outlets, as opposed to a crowdsourcing news source like HN. Is that right?
  - OJFord 2y ago
    I mean when you write 'UK researchers find', especially to a global audience (which UoKentucky PR dept may not particularly have but HN does (Hello from the (the!) UK)) that it sounds more like the country UK than the.. no offence intended but not exactly world renowned university. (I've heard of Kentucky, probably my first time hearing of its university in its own right - though I might have assumed it had one.)
    - lol768 2y ago
      It seems like a fairly mediocre institution, at least in terms of research output: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/generate/health-sciences/global/academic https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/gene... Not entirely surprised we'd never heard of it.
      - genewitch 2y ago
        a lot of southern schools publish in a different fashion. Most of my agricultural and husbandry knowledge of the area i live in comes from various universities .pdf files. My point is merely not publishing in Nature (or wherever) doesn't mean that serious research doesn't occur at that campus. Their "customers" may just be citizens of that state (or in some cases, that county).
      - NemoNobody 2y ago
        I don't feel like that is a correct way to measure an institutions mediocrity or not. I have found that frequently cited Universities that publish many very popular articles per year per journal become less credible with fame. Hubris aside objectivity becomes lost in the money being made. A far better measure of a University would be the people it graduates or by assessing the actual effects and impact of a research University with their published studies. If the University of Kentucky specializes in agricultural research, that's most likely why you've never heard of them - perhaps they've made huge contributions to the elimination of terrible fungus plaguing a specific crop, nobody would hear about that. Fixing the proverbial fungus is a far bigger deal tho than most of the ambiguous pop science publications coming out of far more "prestigious" institutions these days.
    - goochphd 2y ago
      I wouldn't read too much into it. UK is one of my alma maters. Everyone in that area of the US means "University of Kentucky" when they say "UK". It isn't a dig at the United Kingdom nor is it (I assume) an attempt to gain undue credibility by associating with the country. For the people there, UK as the University is simply the first order association for that acronym, rather than what is to them a faraway country that has no bearing on their day-to-day lives.
      - OJFord 2y ago
        > I wouldn't read too much into it. I don't think I am? I'm just agreeing the title should be different here, and it has now changed so either the submitted or a mod agreed. > Everyone in that area of the US means "University of Kentucky" when they say "UK". It isn't a dig at the United Kingdom nor is it (I assume) an attempt to gain undue credibility by associating with the country. For the people there, UK as the University is simply the first order association for that acronym, rather than what is to them a faraway country that has no bearing on their day-to-day lives. Right, that's what I meant about audience, and it making sense for the UoK's PR dept.
dyauspitr 2y ago
I feel like it would be trusted a little bit more if it was a study by the NHS from the UK rather than something from Kentucky.
- kjs3 2y ago
  I was just reading on the BBC that people were having to go overseas for critical surgeries because the NHS so woefully incompetent that people were on many years long waiting list. So maybe put "NHS excellence" on the shelf next to "Empire" as UK delusions that have long since passed. U of Kentucky is a pretty decent school, ~25k students with (from personal experience) excellent Civil Engineering and Chemistry schools, at least.
  - lol768 2y ago
    NIHR's research is genuinely world-leading. Any output from "a pretty decent school of 25k students" (U of Kentucky) pales in comparison to the research outputs from studies that NIHR grants fund, many of which are international collaborations. NIHR and "the NHS" are of course completely separate organisations, though NIHR studies recruit NHS patients and make use of NHS patient data for health research. The fact that you don't understand this says a lot about the judgment you attempt to make of the UK's life sciences research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/our-impact/making-a-difference-stories.htm https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/our-impact/making-a-differen... https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/search/funder/NIHR%20(ODA) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/search/funder/NIHR%20(ODA) I'm sorry, but I must admit I'd never even heard of the University of Kentucky before today, and some basic research suggests it's not considered in the top 300 universities globally which is probably why. On contrast, there's plenty of universities within the top 100 (and top 10) within the (real) UK, particularly within the field of life sciences. I was also pretty happy with the one-week turnaround the NHS sorted for me when I needed something potentially cancerous checked out (endoscopy). I didn't pay a penny for that, I don't pay a penny for my long-term prescriptions and I can see a GP same-day if I need to. Again, for free.
  - fao_ 2y ago
    The reason for that is around 30 - 50 years of continual gutting of the NHS, aggressive implementation of perverse incentives and anti-targets (e.g. "hospitals get less money if they fail to meet X standard of care, because they do not have enough money"), and overloading of staff duties to reduce costs (e.g. Physicians now performing duties that receptionists used to handle, the lack of work force meaning they have to work long amounts of overtime on the weekend, the lack of rest contributing to bad decision-making, and so on).

Kind of, in the sense that it sounds like a global news headline, vs. 'University of Exeter researchers find [...]' published by exeter.ac.uk, on this globally read site.

lemarchr 2y ago
It's global news to me. Hello from Australia! Edit: Ah wait, I think I get what you mean. By "global news" you mean it's been deemed worthy of sharing to an international audience by media outlets, as opposed to a crowdsourcing news source like HN. Is that right?
- OJFord 2y ago
  I mean when you write 'UK researchers find', especially to a global audience (which UoKentucky PR dept may not particularly have but HN does (Hello from the (the!) UK)) that it sounds more like the country UK than the.. no offence intended but not exactly world renowned university. (I've heard of Kentucky, probably my first time hearing of its university in its own right - though I might have assumed it had one.)
  - lol768 2y ago
    It seems like a fairly mediocre institution, at least in terms of research output: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/generate/health-sciences/global/academic https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/gene... Not entirely surprised we'd never heard of it.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      a lot of southern schools publish in a different fashion. Most of my agricultural and husbandry knowledge of the area i live in comes from various universities .pdf files. My point is merely not publishing in Nature (or wherever) doesn't mean that serious research doesn't occur at that campus. Their "customers" may just be citizens of that state (or in some cases, that county).
    - NemoNobody 2y ago
      I don't feel like that is a correct way to measure an institutions mediocrity or not. I have found that frequently cited Universities that publish many very popular articles per year per journal become less credible with fame. Hubris aside objectivity becomes lost in the money being made. A far better measure of a University would be the people it graduates or by assessing the actual effects and impact of a research University with their published studies. If the University of Kentucky specializes in agricultural research, that's most likely why you've never heard of them - perhaps they've made huge contributions to the elimination of terrible fungus plaguing a specific crop, nobody would hear about that. Fixing the proverbial fungus is a far bigger deal tho than most of the ambiguous pop science publications coming out of far more "prestigious" institutions these days.
  - goochphd 2y ago
    I wouldn't read too much into it. UK is one of my alma maters. Everyone in that area of the US means "University of Kentucky" when they say "UK". It isn't a dig at the United Kingdom nor is it (I assume) an attempt to gain undue credibility by associating with the country. For the people there, UK as the University is simply the first order association for that acronym, rather than what is to them a faraway country that has no bearing on their day-to-day lives.
    - OJFord 2y ago
      > I wouldn't read too much into it. I don't think I am? I'm just agreeing the title should be different here, and it has now changed so either the submitted or a mod agreed. > Everyone in that area of the US means "University of Kentucky" when they say "UK". It isn't a dig at the United Kingdom nor is it (I assume) an attempt to gain undue credibility by associating with the country. For the people there, UK as the University is simply the first order association for that acronym, rather than what is to them a faraway country that has no bearing on their day-to-day lives. Right, that's what I meant about audience, and it making sense for the UoK's PR dept.

dyauspitr 2y ago

I feel like it would be trusted a little bit more if it was a study by the NHS from the UK rather than something from Kentucky.

kjs3 2y ago
I was just reading on the BBC that people were having to go overseas for critical surgeries because the NHS so woefully incompetent that people were on many years long waiting list. So maybe put "NHS excellence" on the shelf next to "Empire" as UK delusions that have long since passed. U of Kentucky is a pretty decent school, ~25k students with (from personal experience) excellent Civil Engineering and Chemistry schools, at least.
- lol768 2y ago
  NIHR's research is genuinely world-leading. Any output from "a pretty decent school of 25k students" (U of Kentucky) pales in comparison to the research outputs from studies that NIHR grants fund, many of which are international collaborations. NIHR and "the NHS" are of course completely separate organisations, though NIHR studies recruit NHS patients and make use of NHS patient data for health research. The fact that you don't understand this says a lot about the judgment you attempt to make of the UK's life sciences research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/our-impact/making-a-difference-stories.htm https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/our-impact/making-a-differen... https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/search/funder/NIHR%20(ODA) https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/search/funder/NIHR%20(ODA) I'm sorry, but I must admit I'd never even heard of the University of Kentucky before today, and some basic research suggests it's not considered in the top 300 universities globally which is probably why. On contrast, there's plenty of universities within the top 100 (and top 10) within the (real) UK, particularly within the field of life sciences. I was also pretty happy with the one-week turnaround the NHS sorted for me when I needed something potentially cancerous checked out (endoscopy). I didn't pay a penny for that, I don't pay a penny for my long-term prescriptions and I can see a GP same-day if I need to. Again, for free.
- fao_ 2y ago
  The reason for that is around 30 - 50 years of continual gutting of the NHS, aggressive implementation of perverse incentives and anti-targets (e.g. "hospitals get less money if they fail to meet X standard of care, because they do not have enough money"), and overloading of staff duties to reduce costs (e.g. Physicians now performing duties that receptionists used to handle, the lack of work force meaning they have to work long amounts of overtime on the weekend, the lack of rest contributing to bad decision-making, and so on).