6 ms·

Where are the corporate lobbyists on this stuff? My understanding is that public research funding (and its associated administration) periodically yields result

by abeppu 2y ago

Where are the corporate lobbyists on this stuff? My understanding is that public research funding (and its associated administration) periodically yields results that either turn into viable commercial products or tools for whole sub-industries. Lasik surgery, PCR, CRISPR, MRIs are supposed to have come out of NSF projects, and these all became someone's line of business. Why are the heads of biotech or pharma or medical device companies not publicly stating that destabilizing the apparatus for early research risks shrinking these fields?

kjksf 2y ago
Per Grok, no NSF funding was used to develop CRISPR. I'm too lazy to fact check other. This doesn't affect the NSF grants. They fired 10% of middle managers distributing the grants. The actual scientific work is not done by employees of NSF but by employees of universities etc. Finally, it's a stretch to argue that even if NSF grants go away, the progress of science stops. Universities have other sources of funds and I don't see why businesses need government subsidies. They are not giving free lasik surgeries or MRI scans, they can fund their products and services from profits not taxpayer (i.e. you and me) money.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Every professor in a scientific field that I know is telling me that their university leadership is preparing for indefinite hiring freezes and massive cost cutting in preparation for huge slashes in funding from these institutions.
- rsfern 2y ago
  “Middle managers” is a pretty gross mischaracterization of NSF program managers. They are more like investment portfolio managers, responsible for coordinating and leading the external reviews of research proposals, evaluating the proposal and reviews to prioritize which projects to invest in to achieve a good risk/reward profile for the goals of the broader program, and working with the academics doing the research to help them stay on track and increase the impact of their ideas. I don’t totally disagree with your point about scientific progress continuing with a diminished NSF, but NSF does place a lot of emphasis on early stage fundamental high risk / high reward research, which industry has been trending away from in favor of quicker and clearer returns. Having an evidence-based discussion about how the US should allocate resources for scientific discovery is great - but it should be a clear discussion within the norms of our democratic institutions instead of a unilateral move by a few that stand to personally gain at the expense of the broader interest of the the American people
- cyberge99 2y ago
  Using Elon Musks own AI as a source?
dekhn 2y ago
PCR was invented in industry (although it depended on research funded by NIH and other orgs). LASIK wasn't solely from NSF funding.
- abeppu 2y ago
  I think the "solely" part isn't necessary to the claim that the NSF is a large net benefit to industry by supporting early research. Apparently the NSF did provide support for IntraLase to pursue commercializing a device for LASIK cornea surgery. https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/invention-impact-story-lasik-eye-surgery https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/invention-impact-story-l... With PCR, their own claim, which other sources seem to agree with, is that research on extremophile bacteria supported by NSF in the 1960s found the bacteria from which a heat-tolerant DNA polymerase enzyme was isolated. I think this is actually a pretty good example of research which initially might have seemed purely exploratory that facilitates valuable applications which couldn't have been seen at the outset.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    The original Taq polymerase used in the original PCR was published here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/232952/pdf/jbacter00316-0528.pdf https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/232952/pdf/jb... and funded by the U. Cincinnati. The NSF funding (along with Atomic Energy COmmission funding!) paid for the initial capture and isolation of Taq, but that is just one of many things that had to be done for PCR to happen. I think the NSF is stretching here to say they made a sigifnicant contribution to CRIPSR. In summary: NSF funding is great. It played an important role in a key component of PCR. But it's still a stretch for them to tout their involvement with PCR per-se.

by abeppu 2y ago

kjksf 2y ago

Per Grok, no NSF funding was used to develop CRISPR. I'm too lazy to fact check other. This doesn't affect the NSF grants. They fired 10% of middle managers distributing the grants. The actual scientific work is not done by employees of NSF but by employees of universities etc. Finally, it's a stretch to argue that even if NSF grants go away, the progress of science stops. Universities have other sources of funds and I don't see why businesses need government subsidies. They are not giving free lasik surgeries or MRI scans, they can fund their products and services from profits not taxpayer (i.e. you and me) money.

UncleMeat 2y ago
Every professor in a scientific field that I know is telling me that their university leadership is preparing for indefinite hiring freezes and massive cost cutting in preparation for huge slashes in funding from these institutions.
rsfern 2y ago
“Middle managers” is a pretty gross mischaracterization of NSF program managers. They are more like investment portfolio managers, responsible for coordinating and leading the external reviews of research proposals, evaluating the proposal and reviews to prioritize which projects to invest in to achieve a good risk/reward profile for the goals of the broader program, and working with the academics doing the research to help them stay on track and increase the impact of their ideas. I don’t totally disagree with your point about scientific progress continuing with a diminished NSF, but NSF does place a lot of emphasis on early stage fundamental high risk / high reward research, which industry has been trending away from in favor of quicker and clearer returns. Having an evidence-based discussion about how the US should allocate resources for scientific discovery is great - but it should be a clear discussion within the norms of our democratic institutions instead of a unilateral move by a few that stand to personally gain at the expense of the broader interest of the the American people
cyberge99 2y ago
Using Elon Musks own AI as a source?

dekhn 2y ago

PCR was invented in industry (although it depended on research funded by NIH and other orgs). LASIK wasn't solely from NSF funding.

abeppu 2y ago
I think the "solely" part isn't necessary to the claim that the NSF is a large net benefit to industry by supporting early research. Apparently the NSF did provide support for IntraLase to pursue commercializing a device for LASIK cornea surgery. https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/invention-impact-story-lasik-eye-surgery https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/invention-impact-story-l... With PCR, their own claim, which other sources seem to agree with, is that research on extremophile bacteria supported by NSF in the 1960s found the bacteria from which a heat-tolerant DNA polymerase enzyme was isolated. I think this is actually a pretty good example of research which initially might have seemed purely exploratory that facilitates valuable applications which couldn't have been seen at the outset.
- dekhn 2y ago
  The original Taq polymerase used in the original PCR was published here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/232952/pdf/jbacter00316-0528.pdf https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/232952/pdf/jb... and funded by the U. Cincinnati. The NSF funding (along with Atomic Energy COmmission funding!) paid for the initial capture and isolation of Taq, but that is just one of many things that had to be done for PCR to happen. I think the NSF is stretching here to say they made a sigifnicant contribution to CRIPSR. In summary: NSF funding is great. It played an important role in a key component of PCR. But it's still a stretch for them to tout their involvement with PCR per-se.