7 ms·

( 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

( 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 ago
I'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 ago
It'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.
- tucnak 2y ago
  It's simple, really. Make it so the experts have 0 leverage. Maybe have "the workers" make all the decisions! ??? Profit? :-) They tried this in Soviet Union...
  - xopqa02 2y ago
    I wouldn't call the nomenklatura mere "workers".
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hiddencost 2y ago
  You're insane. Jaw dropping ignorance justifying world ending cruelty. You understand that they're delaying the flu vaccine in a way that will kill 10,000 elderly people next year?
  - msandford 2y ago
    You've made at least 2-3 personal attacks against me while seemingly not even trying to address the problem that I highlighted. If that's your goal, OK. It definitely goes against the spirit of the rules here if not the letter. Delaying the flu vaccine? Ok that's bad, sure. It's also a real goalpost move and also doesn't address the technical problem "insiders going to inside" I raised in answer to the parent's paraphrased "I can't understand this, why is this necessary?" I don't know that doing things this way is strictly necessary. But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      It _seems_ like the question was Q> Can you explain why the sledge hammer approach, removing funding for things wholesale and causing large amounts of destruction (both economic and health) is reasonable? And your answer was A> It looks like there is a problem with the current system, and changing something would be beneficial. And, while I agree that the sentiment ("changing something would be beneficial") is fair... as an answer it falls squarely into "We should do something, this is something, so we should do this", which is categorically ridiculous. The way to approach these types of issues, where changing things can (and does) have real, significant impact on lots of people, is to come up with a plan and discuss what the impacts/tradeoffs are. It is _not_ to just do the first thing that comes to mind and then ignore the people who's lives your destroying.
    - lawlessone 2y ago
      > But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem. ok but burning down a house with a family in it because of a hypothetical burglar usually isn't a good solution.
- thinkcontext 2y ago
  > 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. You're the one who has identified this as a problem, shouldn't you be the one to suggest an alternative?
  - jonhohle 2y ago
    The alternative being implemented is that insiders could not police themselves, so outsiders are doing it for them with far less precision. It’s like a hoarders show where everyone is shocked (SHOCKED!) that things had gotten as bad as it is, the hoarder has lost the capability to determine what is valuable or necessary, so a third party with no attachment or sentiment comes in to clean house and throws out the good with the bad.
- jghn 2y ago
  Out of curiosity, how much direct experience do you have with the NIH? Or are you just assuming that what you say is true?
- lou1306 2y ago
  Couldn't at least part of the reviewing be done by foreign experts? Having said that, this smells witch-hunty to me. The US can boast decades of excellence in medical and biological sciences, which in turn generates a massive windfall. Completely upending the architecture behind this dominance on the suspicion that a few hundred million bucks are less-than-optimally spent is a hell of a gambit, and even ignores all the higher-order effects that even that "spare change" bring about.
- cdaringe 2y ago
  I contributed heavily to a paper once. One of my reviewers lit it on fire with ample, good criticism. There may be problems with the system (show me one without), but it does work.
stevenhuang 2y ago
A comment I saved recently offers an explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147910 I don't agree with it but I understand it.
- arrosenberg 2y ago
  That’s Fascism baby. Action for actions sake, otherwise the people will notice things aren’t as bad the shouting implies.
zo1 2y ago
I was referring to the election of Trump and the people he's appointed. Everything was rotting from the inside out and infested, and like with everything that is rotted/rusting, you will have to carve it all out to clean it, and sometimes you unfortunately take out legitimate and healthy things.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  That is an assertion without evidence. Just because lots of people say it doesn't make it true. And even if it is true, you could carefully and surgically remove the rot, instead of chopping off whole limbs. And even then, you can do it following the laws set by Congress, rather than by executive decree.
  - zo1 2y ago
    Again, back to my original point. We've been "trying" this "surgical" approach for decades, and a lot of people believe that it wasn't working with things getting objectively and subjectively worse. Why? I'd argue it's because people's concerns and sincere requests for debate or voicing of their concerns has been met with derision, dismissal, gaslighting and downright cancellation. I'm not trying to debate it here, but my overall point is that people's concerns, criticisms and request for genuine debate have not been listened to, and now the pendulum has arguably swung way too far in response. Perhaps next time around we won't be so dismissive and hostile, and actually meet in the middle. As a personal aside, the scientific/medical community (overlapping heavily with NIH) has not been able to 'surgically' prevent the advent of crazy child-mutilation and sterilization in the supposedly-enlightened West, so how do you expect average people that disagree with it to try approach it with civility? We've reached absolute peak madness, so of course debate and "surgical" type approaches are out of the window at this point. We must do better next time around.
    - anon84873628 2y ago
      Ah yes. Trying to have a civil and productive conversation with people who insist we're at "absolute peak madness" of "crazy child-mutilation". Those aren't sincere people; they're living in an alternate reality warped by propaganda. Of course I realize this is a deliberately created wedge issue precisely so those folks can claim the burden is on the rest of us to engage properly. And when we're exhausted by debunking bullshit they can claim we're being elitist and dismissive. Brilliant strategy that's taken our country to an illustrious and proud moment...

bluGill 2y ago

I'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 ago

It'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.

tucnak 2y ago
It's simple, really. Make it so the experts have 0 leverage. Maybe have "the workers" make all the decisions! ??? Profit? :-) They tried this in Soviet Union...
- xopqa02 2y ago
  I wouldn't call the nomenklatura mere "workers".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hiddencost 2y ago
You're insane. Jaw dropping ignorance justifying world ending cruelty. You understand that they're delaying the flu vaccine in a way that will kill 10,000 elderly people next year?
- msandford 2y ago
  You've made at least 2-3 personal attacks against me while seemingly not even trying to address the problem that I highlighted. If that's your goal, OK. It definitely goes against the spirit of the rules here if not the letter. Delaying the flu vaccine? Ok that's bad, sure. It's also a real goalpost move and also doesn't address the technical problem "insiders going to inside" I raised in answer to the parent's paraphrased "I can't understand this, why is this necessary?" I don't know that doing things this way is strictly necessary. But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem.
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    It _seems_ like the question was Q> Can you explain why the sledge hammer approach, removing funding for things wholesale and causing large amounts of destruction (both economic and health) is reasonable? And your answer was A> It looks like there is a problem with the current system, and changing something would be beneficial. And, while I agree that the sentiment ("changing something would be beneficial") is fair... as an answer it falls squarely into "We should do something, this is something, so we should do this", which is categorically ridiculous. The way to approach these types of issues, where changing things can (and does) have real, significant impact on lots of people, is to come up with a plan and discuss what the impacts/tradeoffs are. It is _not_ to just do the first thing that comes to mind and then ignore the people who's lives your destroying.
  - lawlessone 2y ago
    > But I also don't think it's reasonable to just hand-wave away or worse completely fail to even acknowledge much less actually address the insiders problem. ok but burning down a house with a family in it because of a hypothetical burglar usually isn't a good solution.
thinkcontext 2y ago
> 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. You're the one who has identified this as a problem, shouldn't you be the one to suggest an alternative?
- jonhohle 2y ago
  The alternative being implemented is that insiders could not police themselves, so outsiders are doing it for them with far less precision. It’s like a hoarders show where everyone is shocked (SHOCKED!) that things had gotten as bad as it is, the hoarder has lost the capability to determine what is valuable or necessary, so a third party with no attachment or sentiment comes in to clean house and throws out the good with the bad.
jghn 2y ago
Out of curiosity, how much direct experience do you have with the NIH? Or are you just assuming that what you say is true?
lou1306 2y ago
Couldn't at least part of the reviewing be done by foreign experts? Having said that, this smells witch-hunty to me. The US can boast decades of excellence in medical and biological sciences, which in turn generates a massive windfall. Completely upending the architecture behind this dominance on the suspicion that a few hundred million bucks are less-than-optimally spent is a hell of a gambit, and even ignores all the higher-order effects that even that "spare change" bring about.
cdaringe 2y ago
I contributed heavily to a paper once. One of my reviewers lit it on fire with ample, good criticism. There may be problems with the system (show me one without), but it does work.

stevenhuang 2y ago

A comment I saved recently offers an explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43147910 I don't agree with it but I understand it.

arrosenberg 2y ago
That’s Fascism baby. Action for actions sake, otherwise the people will notice things aren’t as bad the shouting implies.

zo1 2y ago

I was referring to the election of Trump and the people he's appointed. Everything was rotting from the inside out and infested, and like with everything that is rotted/rusting, you will have to carve it all out to clean it, and sometimes you unfortunately take out legitimate and healthy things.

anon84873628 2y ago
That is an assertion without evidence. Just because lots of people say it doesn't make it true. And even if it is true, you could carefully and surgically remove the rot, instead of chopping off whole limbs. And even then, you can do it following the laws set by Congress, rather than by executive decree.
- zo1 2y ago
  Again, back to my original point. We've been "trying" this "surgical" approach for decades, and a lot of people believe that it wasn't working with things getting objectively and subjectively worse. Why? I'd argue it's because people's concerns and sincere requests for debate or voicing of their concerns has been met with derision, dismissal, gaslighting and downright cancellation. I'm not trying to debate it here, but my overall point is that people's concerns, criticisms and request for genuine debate have not been listened to, and now the pendulum has arguably swung way too far in response. Perhaps next time around we won't be so dismissive and hostile, and actually meet in the middle. As a personal aside, the scientific/medical community (overlapping heavily with NIH) has not been able to 'surgically' prevent the advent of crazy child-mutilation and sterilization in the supposedly-enlightened West, so how do you expect average people that disagree with it to try approach it with civility? We've reached absolute peak madness, so of course debate and "surgical" type approaches are out of the window at this point. We must do better next time around.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    Ah yes. Trying to have a civil and productive conversation with people who insist we're at "absolute peak madness" of "crazy child-mutilation". Those aren't sincere people; they're living in an alternate reality warped by propaganda. Of course I realize this is a deliberately created wedge issue precisely so those folks can claim the burden is on the rest of us to engage properly. And when we're exhausted by debunking bullshit they can claim we're being elitist and dismissive. Brilliant strategy that's taken our country to an illustrious and proud moment...