4 ms·

Remember this tragedy and the millions like it when you read the news today. Trump and Musk are killing the very research that has a shot at saving lives and p

Remember this tragedy and the millions like it when you read the news today. Trump and Musk are killing the very research that has a shot at saving lives and preventing these families from being torn apart. NIH and NSF are being gutted. Universities won't be able to do bio research at all under the new 15% cap on NIH indirect costs. These decisions which save no appreciable amount of money have a real impact on people whose children must now grow up without them. As a new father this is really heartbreaking.

bamboozled 2y ago
It's really hard to comprehend, and what's more incredible is that people are "cheering" for this? What the actual hell is going on.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  People don’t believe indirect costs actually fund research and accordingly see this as directing more money into important, life-saving research. From their perspective, the origin of this thread is someone using a tragedy to emotionally manipulate on behalf of bloated institutions and their administrations — and every bit as monstrous as you believe their views are. Perhaps even more so.
  - light_hue_1 2y ago
    Bio research needs buildings. Electricity, heat, lights need to be on in those buildings and they need maintenance. Labs need equipment and often very specialized and expensive space. Not to mention someone needs to do accounting, payroll, taxes, immigration, maintenance, legal, ethics, etc. And all of these people need facilities, offices, computers, etc. Just like any corporation! These are indirect costs. You cannot do research without them. What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. So, no, more money isn't going to go to better research. It's going to go to much worse research and it will be a massive waste. Instead of doing the best research I can, I'll need to think about the lowest overhead projects so that my department doesn't go bankrupt. That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That's a bad deal for everyone! Good scientists don't want to do bad research. The best will leave. This will destroy the lead that the US has in science and technology over the rest of the world. Never mind kill countless people who would have been saved by new treatments.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      > What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. The whole debate is whether 15% indirect costs is sufficient or whether it needs to be 30%+. Without a doubt universities are bloated and many don’t invest appropriately in their facilities — but where is the appropriate line? Unfortunately, you didn’t add to that debate: you assumed the conclusion and then catastrophized based on your assumption. That exact style of argumentation is what makes people distrust that 30%+ really is needed — because nobody itemizes how, they just immediately resort to shaming and emotional manipulation. > That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That’s compounded by all your personal examples of how this impacts you being direct costs — which have greater funding, with this change. And your claim that you can no longer do them dubious at best.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        This thinking is completely backward. If there is an established threshold, and you want to change it, it is on you to do the homework to determine that the lower threshold will be sufficient and won't cause harm. It's not the responsibility of the people currently doing research (the way they've done so for years) to justify the current threshold.
        zmgsabst 2y ago
        The executive in charge of the grant-giving agencies changed policy — after looking at rates from other grants, which fell in the 10-15% range. If you want the public to believe that was wrong, you’ll need to make that case.
        bamboozled 2y ago
        May I ask what your actual gripe is with level of spending that was going into research before? Is there actual evidence that shows there was an issue that needed to be immediately addressed the way it was? Some evidence of "fraud" perhaps ?
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    I call bullshit because as the other poster said, research will not happen in an island, there are much much less invasive ways to cut spending than what is happening. I have a friend who is caught up in this and it is chaos. Putting the fox in charge of the hen house is where it went wrong.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      I just can’t believe people are so naive. I do believe a lot of voters to their anger to the booths. They saw their “retribution”and voted for it.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]

bamboozled 2y ago

It's really hard to comprehend, and what's more incredible is that people are "cheering" for this? What the actual hell is going on.

zmgsabst 2y ago
People don’t believe indirect costs actually fund research and accordingly see this as directing more money into important, life-saving research. From their perspective, the origin of this thread is someone using a tragedy to emotionally manipulate on behalf of bloated institutions and their administrations — and every bit as monstrous as you believe their views are. Perhaps even more so.
- light_hue_1 2y ago
  Bio research needs buildings. Electricity, heat, lights need to be on in those buildings and they need maintenance. Labs need equipment and often very specialized and expensive space. Not to mention someone needs to do accounting, payroll, taxes, immigration, maintenance, legal, ethics, etc. And all of these people need facilities, offices, computers, etc. Just like any corporation! These are indirect costs. You cannot do research without them. What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. So, no, more money isn't going to go to better research. It's going to go to much worse research and it will be a massive waste. Instead of doing the best research I can, I'll need to think about the lowest overhead projects so that my department doesn't go bankrupt. That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That's a bad deal for everyone! Good scientists don't want to do bad research. The best will leave. This will destroy the lead that the US has in science and technology over the rest of the world. Never mind kill countless people who would have been saved by new treatments.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    > What's going to happen if the government cuts off most indirect costs is that we're going to be forced to do research that can be covered by those costs. The whole debate is whether 15% indirect costs is sufficient or whether it needs to be 30%+. Without a doubt universities are bloated and many don’t invest appropriately in their facilities — but where is the appropriate line? Unfortunately, you didn’t add to that debate: you assumed the conclusion and then catastrophized based on your assumption. That exact style of argumentation is what makes people distrust that 30%+ really is needed — because nobody itemizes how, they just immediately resort to shaming and emotional manipulation. > That means taking no risks, avoiding new data collection, not starting up anything radically new that might not have an immediate payoff, etc. That’s compounded by all your personal examples of how this impacts you being direct costs — which have greater funding, with this change. And your claim that you can no longer do them dubious at best.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      This thinking is completely backward. If there is an established threshold, and you want to change it, it is on you to do the homework to determine that the lower threshold will be sufficient and won't cause harm. It's not the responsibility of the people currently doing research (the way they've done so for years) to justify the current threshold.
      - zmgsabst 2y ago
        The executive in charge of the grant-giving agencies changed policy — after looking at rates from other grants, which fell in the 10-15% range. If you want the public to believe that was wrong, you’ll need to make that case.
        bamboozled 2y ago
        May I ask what your actual gripe is with level of spending that was going into research before? Is there actual evidence that shows there was an issue that needed to be immediately addressed the way it was? Some evidence of "fraud" perhaps ?
- bamboozled 2y ago
  I call bullshit because as the other poster said, research will not happen in an island, there are much much less invasive ways to cut spending than what is happening. I have a friend who is caught up in this and it is chaos. Putting the fox in charge of the hen house is where it went wrong.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    I just can’t believe people are so naive. I do believe a lot of voters to their anger to the booths. They saw their “retribution”and voted for it.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]