3 ms·

No, this isn't really true. The NIH's budget is 30 billion a year, and that funding is already incredibly competitive. Private universities, other government so

No, this isn't really true. The NIH's budget is 30 billion a year, and that funding is already incredibly competitive. Private universities, other government sources such as NSF, NASA, and DoE, and private institutions then in addition spend an amount that dwarfs that number. On top of all of that, the last 6 years have seen cuts, layoffs, and an enormous amount of work go unfunded in the life sciences. Only about 16% of proposed NIH grants alone are funded each year- we can immediately see from that data that funding all NIH grants in just one year would probably take well over $100 billion. The life scientists of the U.S. could find a use for Bill Gate's entire fortune in a few years. Not that dropping $80 billion on across the board medical research wouldn't be incredibly, enormously beneficial, but the infrastructure and manpower in the medical sciences are there to be able to absorb it and put it to use.

javert 12y ago
Thank you for an informative comment. That is mind-blowing. At first I was skeptical, but I was able to confirm the $30 billion number [1]. That is about twice as much as NASA [2]. [1] http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C...
db48x 12y ago
If they magically funded all of the grants then there wouldn't be enough scientists to do all the work; there's nothing to say that you can't put in more than one proposal at a time. Edit: well, of course everyone's salaries would go up since there would be so much more demand and no extra supply, but I doubt they could go up that much all at once; most of the money would still go unspent.
jvagner 12y ago
Have you talked to anyone who's been funded by the Gates Foundation? I have. It's rigorous, and very data-intensive. Whatever imaginary cache of research out there that might exist probably couldn't be qualified-up for a GF funding process. I've done grant funding as well. People say they want money, but the minute you give them a deadline, they're gone, and they can't collect even the merest evidence required for due diligence.

javert 12y ago

Thank you for an informative comment. That is mind-blowing. At first I was skeptical, but I was able to confirm the $30 billion number [1]. That is about twice as much as NASA [2]. [1] http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C...

db48x 12y ago

If they magically funded all of the grants then there wouldn't be enough scientists to do all the work; there's nothing to say that you can't put in more than one proposal at a time. Edit: well, of course everyone's salaries would go up since there would be so much more demand and no extra supply, but I doubt they could go up that much all at once; most of the money would still go unspent.

jvagner 12y ago

Have you talked to anyone who's been funded by the Gates Foundation? I have. It's rigorous, and very data-intensive. Whatever imaginary cache of research out there that might exist probably couldn't be qualified-up for a GF funding process. I've done grant funding as well. People say they want money, but the minute you give them a deadline, they're gone, and they can't collect even the merest evidence required for due diligence.