4 ms·

> Scientists need better messaging or else we're going to stop having breakthroughs like this Sure, but it's really sad that scientists need to justify their f

> Scientists need better messaging or else we're going to stop having breakthroughs like this Sure, but it's really sad that scientists need to justify their funding to the public - they already spend so much time justifying it to the NIH and others for funding. So many people have had their careers jeopardized by finding pulled mid-project. I am really concerned about our research pipeline, because my post-doc friends are all applying to jobs outside the US now.

mattkrause 1y ago
This is where the funders really ought to step up. A spokesperson from (say) NINDS really ought to be shouting to anyone who will listen about how excited they are to see their <many year>, <many dollar> investment in Huntington's pay off. I'd love it if they highlighted some of the especially "weird" studies that went into this to demonstrate how important fundamental research is and how it goes in unexpected directions.
drstewart 1y ago
[flagged]
- conception 1y ago
  You missed the second part of that sentence buddy. Your examples would match if every base commander had to write public messaging on their bases’ budgets and projects.
  - derektank 1y ago
    Every base commander regularly meets with their Public Affairs personnel and will often attend public events in the local region their base is in. The funding is not directly tied to their public perception, sure, but there is a causal chain that every O-6 and above is well aware of.
- xphos 1y ago
  > No, it's not sad that you need to justify the use of public money. You don't ask your plumber which computer network you should build for a fortune 500 company for the same reason I don't ask a computer programmer how to fix leaky pipes. People who study in an area actually have much stronger basis for having opinions rather than keyboard warriors who are upset that there mythological studies have been debunked time and time again. That's not science that is cult behavior. If you want to influence that decision process work in that field and provide justifications for that vaccine research and some new angle that's been missed. The American public is not a intelligent member of the medical community there opinion should not have the same weight in day to day operations as the medical community. They can allocate an amount we want to do research and should ask the NIH to do board research because that is effective and has an overwhelmingly strong record having done the background research for basically ever medical advancement made for a long long time. So, no I think we should allow a panel of experts to evaluate what is worth funding in research. Give the NIH a budget to hire a panel of field experts like they have been for a long time and fund research that panel says is worth it. Autism and vaccine linkage is studied and has been shown several times to have no strong correlation with vaccination. The idea we need to study that more is stupid and experts say it is stupid because it steals funding from actual research into other environmental factors that haven't been studied yet. Maybe its PFAS chemicals maybe its something else.
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    That's a fantastic way to fall victim to grift. Your "panel of experts" can easily be as biased as anyone else. When you give people vast authority on the basis of their expertise (even assuming the expertise is genuine), anything that challenges it becomes not a novel idea worth exploring, but a direct challenge to their authority. Planck's principle- that science advances one funeral at a time- is rather apropos here.
  - drstewart 1y ago
    I'm glad you think that! Because a panel of experts at the CDC has determined this should be studied: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-new-york-health-care/2025/09/15/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-to-be-awarded-cdc-funding-for-vaccine-autism-study-00563460 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-new-york-health-... You don't disagree with the experts, do you?
philipallstar 1y ago
> it's really sad that scientists need to justify their funding to the public The (mostly American) public pays their salaries; it's not that odd. The public elect the government (mostly the US government) that distributes the funds. The US voter in general has just got tired of living in the "worst place in the world" while also funding the majority of the world's science and health breakthroughs, I think.
- slfnflctd 1y ago
  This take seems a tad myopic to me. We are rapidly and increasingly falling behind at least two other nations in terms of science and health breakthroughs. The things that make the US seem like the worst place in the world are mostly a result of political gridlock, which is advantageous (in the short term) for a small group of people who thrive under the status quo, who do everything possible with their outsized power to manipulate the electorate to keep it that way, out of cowardice. The US voter in general has been horribly misinformed, misled and manipulated into supporting things that are both against their own personal interest and against the greater good for the country as a whole. I don't know how to fix this, but I personally don't think making grand proclamations about how great we are/were while pointing blame fingers around to obfuscate the more obvious reasons for the average citizen's discontent is a smart or ethical way to approach the situation.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > We are rapidly and increasingly falling behind at least two other nations in terms of science and health breakthroughs. Perhaps you are, but I'm not convinced. What's the metric? > The things that make the US seem like the worst place in the world are mostly a result of political gridlock, which is advantageous (in the short term) for a small group of people who thrive under the status quo, who do everything possible with their outsized power to manipulate the electorate to keep it that way, out of cowardice. The political lines are clear. You can see endless interviews with kids on college campuses who've been indoctrinated to believe the silliest things. That America is the worst, most racist and sexist place in the whole world. > The US voter in general has been horribly misinformed, misled and manipulated into supporting things that are both against their own personal interest and against the greater good for the country as a whole. This seems a tad myopic itself. While I agree people are being misled, I would count both you and I as "people" in that regard, and equally not knowing what's best for everyone. If we did, we could just be the only two voters and it would all be perfect. > I don't know how to fix this, but I personally don't think making grand proclamations about how great we are/were while pointing blame fingers around to obfuscate the more obvious reasons for the average citizen's discontent is a smart or ethical way to approach the situation. No idea what this means, as there were no grand proclamations previously mentioned. I think part of the problem is America can do huge numbers of things right, and carry quite a lot of the advances that help the whole world on its taxpayers' backs, but still be mostly criticised and teased as a country from the citizens of other, generally older, now less high achieving countries. Who only acknowledge those massive, ground-breaking contributions when they are withdrawn and can be used to complain about the USA.

mattkrause 1y ago

This is where the funders really ought to step up. A spokesperson from (say) NINDS really ought to be shouting to anyone who will listen about how excited they are to see their <many year>, <many dollar> investment in Huntington's pay off. I'd love it if they highlighted some of the especially "weird" studies that went into this to demonstrate how important fundamental research is and how it goes in unexpected directions.

drstewart 1y ago

[flagged]

conception 1y ago
You missed the second part of that sentence buddy. Your examples would match if every base commander had to write public messaging on their bases’ budgets and projects.
- derektank 1y ago
  Every base commander regularly meets with their Public Affairs personnel and will often attend public events in the local region their base is in. The funding is not directly tied to their public perception, sure, but there is a causal chain that every O-6 and above is well aware of.
xphos 1y ago
> No, it's not sad that you need to justify the use of public money. You don't ask your plumber which computer network you should build for a fortune 500 company for the same reason I don't ask a computer programmer how to fix leaky pipes. People who study in an area actually have much stronger basis for having opinions rather than keyboard warriors who are upset that there mythological studies have been debunked time and time again. That's not science that is cult behavior. If you want to influence that decision process work in that field and provide justifications for that vaccine research and some new angle that's been missed. The American public is not a intelligent member of the medical community there opinion should not have the same weight in day to day operations as the medical community. They can allocate an amount we want to do research and should ask the NIH to do board research because that is effective and has an overwhelmingly strong record having done the background research for basically ever medical advancement made for a long long time. So, no I think we should allow a panel of experts to evaluate what is worth funding in research. Give the NIH a budget to hire a panel of field experts like they have been for a long time and fund research that panel says is worth it. Autism and vaccine linkage is studied and has been shown several times to have no strong correlation with vaccination. The idea we need to study that more is stupid and experts say it is stupid because it steals funding from actual research into other environmental factors that haven't been studied yet. Maybe its PFAS chemicals maybe its something else.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  That's a fantastic way to fall victim to grift. Your "panel of experts" can easily be as biased as anyone else. When you give people vast authority on the basis of their expertise (even assuming the expertise is genuine), anything that challenges it becomes not a novel idea worth exploring, but a direct challenge to their authority. Planck's principle- that science advances one funeral at a time- is rather apropos here.
- drstewart 1y ago
  I'm glad you think that! Because a panel of experts at the CDC has determined this should be studied: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-new-york-health-care/2025/09/15/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-to-be-awarded-cdc-funding-for-vaccine-autism-study-00563460 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-new-york-health-... You don't disagree with the experts, do you?

philipallstar 1y ago

> it's really sad that scientists need to justify their funding to the public The (mostly American) public pays their salaries; it's not that odd. The public elect the government (mostly the US government) that distributes the funds. The US voter in general has just got tired of living in the "worst place in the world" while also funding the majority of the world's science and health breakthroughs, I think.

slfnflctd 1y ago
This take seems a tad myopic to me. We are rapidly and increasingly falling behind at least two other nations in terms of science and health breakthroughs. The things that make the US seem like the worst place in the world are mostly a result of political gridlock, which is advantageous (in the short term) for a small group of people who thrive under the status quo, who do everything possible with their outsized power to manipulate the electorate to keep it that way, out of cowardice. The US voter in general has been horribly misinformed, misled and manipulated into supporting things that are both against their own personal interest and against the greater good for the country as a whole. I don't know how to fix this, but I personally don't think making grand proclamations about how great we are/were while pointing blame fingers around to obfuscate the more obvious reasons for the average citizen's discontent is a smart or ethical way to approach the situation.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > We are rapidly and increasingly falling behind at least two other nations in terms of science and health breakthroughs. Perhaps you are, but I'm not convinced. What's the metric? > The things that make the US seem like the worst place in the world are mostly a result of political gridlock, which is advantageous (in the short term) for a small group of people who thrive under the status quo, who do everything possible with their outsized power to manipulate the electorate to keep it that way, out of cowardice. The political lines are clear. You can see endless interviews with kids on college campuses who've been indoctrinated to believe the silliest things. That America is the worst, most racist and sexist place in the whole world. > The US voter in general has been horribly misinformed, misled and manipulated into supporting things that are both against their own personal interest and against the greater good for the country as a whole. This seems a tad myopic itself. While I agree people are being misled, I would count both you and I as "people" in that regard, and equally not knowing what's best for everyone. If we did, we could just be the only two voters and it would all be perfect. > I don't know how to fix this, but I personally don't think making grand proclamations about how great we are/were while pointing blame fingers around to obfuscate the more obvious reasons for the average citizen's discontent is a smart or ethical way to approach the situation. No idea what this means, as there were no grand proclamations previously mentioned. I think part of the problem is America can do huge numbers of things right, and carry quite a lot of the advances that help the whole world on its taxpayers' backs, but still be mostly criticised and teased as a country from the citizens of other, generally older, now less high achieving countries. Who only acknowledge those massive, ground-breaking contributions when they are withdrawn and can be used to complain about the USA.