8 ms·
More groundbreaking research funded by the NIH. It's sad to think about how much the US is going to lose with the arbitrary slashing and burning and purging.
by cassidius 2y ago
More groundbreaking research funded by the NIH. It's sad to think about how much the US is going to lose with the arbitrary slashing and burning and purging.
- asciii 2y agoDon't worry they'll take credit for saving this
- kleiba 2y agoAre you referring to the recent Ebola prevention-related cuts? https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/02/27/g-s1-50929/elon-musk-ebola-usaid https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/02/27/g-s1-...
- ck2 2y agoThe most frustrating thing is they all get away with endless daily lies and just move onto the next subject, NIH might never recover, certainly not this decade. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/26/elon-musk-ebola-prevention-usaid-doge/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/26/elon-musk... > Hours after Musk asserted that USAID had restored its Ebola prevention efforts, the agency informed several organizations working with the U.S. government to prevent the spread of the virus overseas that their contracts had been terminated > organizations — which included UNICEF, which had been working with USAID on Ebola prevention in Uganda and other countries — were among thousands of organizations affected by the Trump administration’s move to cancel foreign-assistance contracts
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zo1 2y ago[flagged]
- solarengineer 2y ago( I am neither a voter in the U.S. elections nor do I have direct economic interests there) Could you point me to an articulation that explains why arbitrarily purging (mentioned by your parent post) has been necessary ( mentioned by you)?
- bluGill 2y agoI'm sure you have direct economic interests. Odds are good someone in your circle is type 1 diabetic, and helping that person will indirectly help you.
- msandford 2y agoIt's all well and good to suggest that each program receiving funding gets a thorough review. Of course, that review needs to be by experts, to ensure it gets a fair shake. Who are the experts in the field? The odds that you can be an expert in the field (by publication count, let's say) without having already been funded by the NIH is pretty slim. So now your experts are also insiders. That's going to be a big problem as very few insiders are going to be willing to rock the boat. Even if it's necessary. Maybe you've got a good idea of how to solve this "good review requires experts, experts are very likely insiders, insiders are unlikely to rock the boat" problem. It would be wonderful if there was some solution, even if it was hard.
- istultus 2y agoThe important thing is that these things get funded. It doesn't matter what institute funds them. If an institute becomes stultified and corrupt, there's no reason to champion it over creating another.
- jghn 2y ago> If an institute becomes stultified and corrupt Are you implying the NIH is "stultified and corrupt"? If so, care to back that claim up?
- catlikesshrimp 2y agoThere is no certainty the new order will be better than the previous one. Trying to fix the world with a sledgehammer.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yapyap 2y agoWhat does this comment mean? What institute are you referring to in this cryptic comment?
- karaterobot 2y agoThat's true, but I have lots of experience with the NIH, and haven't found it stultified nor corrupted. In fact, did you hear they recently funded a project that reversed type 1 diabetes?
- ipv4dhcp 2y agoThen fund it yourself! Don't try to force me to pay for it.
- jghn 2y agoI hope that you do not consume a single dime of government resources that I'd prefer not to pay for. But I'm going to be that's not true.
- arrty88 2y agoMost research that is pointed towards important things does get funding from NIH. Most research fails. NIH has a bucket of money for every major issue facing the population. Just takes a few PhD's and a hypothesis to write a proposal.
- sircastor 2y ago> Most research fails So long as the research has a conclusion, it's not a failure. We learned something. There may be something to be said for whether or not the research is a worthy topic, but that's a different conversation.
- snailmailstare 2y agoWithout some research the current President would probably not be healthy enough to be in office, clearly we have to reduce the risk of that happening again.
- ck2 2y agoScientists and their work is not "fungible" There is going to be AT LEAST a whole generation of loss of progress at this point. Everything is going to slowly crawl to a stop and it's not an accident but by design, it's right out of Project2025 https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-ban-renewing-senior-scientists-adds-assaults-its-house-research https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-ban-renewing-sen...
- klysm 2y agoNegative results are not a failure - this perception is one of the biggest problems with academia
- lolive 2y agoFailure in big companies is very common too. They lead to reorganisation, retries and new ways of working. Why is it accepted in the private sector, but not in the public sector?
- andreygrehov 2y agoSlashing is not permanent. It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground. If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop functioning, they may hire back 10 employees and reassess. If operations are still not functional enough, they will hire 10 more. This process continues until everything is operational again. The result is a company that functions just as effectively as before but with fewer employees. This is an optimization of resources and efficiency.
- philipwhiuk 2y agoIf a government stops functioning, the result isn't the same as a company. The argument that 'slashing' is the only way to reduce headcount is also extremely dumb.
- andreygrehov 2y agoNeither companies nor governments fire 100% of their personnel unless a division is no longer needed. Governments, especially, have safeguards to ensure essential functions continue, so they don't simply stop functioning all of a sudden. From a bird's-eye view, a government is not much different from a company. They both allocate resources, manage personnel and strive for efficiency.
- cma 2y agoNot many safeguards for that under unitary executive theory which is likely to become case law soon. Aside from impeachment.
- anon84873628 2y agoYou realize the whole debate is about what different people consider "essential", right?
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoHow the heck do you apply this process to fundamental research? It's pretty much always the case that with basic research you could have cut 95% of studies after the fact and it wouldn't have made much difference in the end. The problem is you don't know which 95% of studies beforehand.
- KumaBear 2y agoProblem is the funding never gets passed on as a savings to the American consumer who needs the treatment.
- thereisnospork 2y agoThe American consumer gets a treatment that didn't exist yesterday and whose IP will be free in ~15 years for their tax dollars. A pretty reasonable give and take on the face of it. (Not that polices to reduce the cost to Americans, especially relative to foreign markets, ought to be unpopular)
- KumaBear 2y agoOther countries also get access at 1/3 the price.
- jghn 2y ago> Other countries also get access at 1/3 the price. 1) Many other countries don't have the ass backwards healthcare system that we have 2) Then there are the poorer countries. It turns out that things like providing them cheap food & medicine manages to a) provide a source of soft power & influence in the world, and b) helps us by helping them by limiting the spread of various diseases and maladies