6 ms·

Good thing we've been cutting science funding across the board! Doubt the NIH and NSF grants were helping science much anyway. As a matter of fact, science sho

by FD3SA 12y ago

Good thing we've been cutting science funding across the board! Doubt the NIH and NSF grants were helping science much anyway. As a matter of fact, science should be privately funded and privately run. What idiot thought it was a good idea to make scientific research a government mandate? To thy weary, I say: The market shall provide. P.S. Yes, I am bitter about the current state of science. I've written about it in great detail before [1][2], but the current fascination with free-market everything has truly made me lose hope for this iteration of society. The free market will work, until it doesn't. Some activities which are absolutely crucial, will not be profitable until it's too late. Medical research is a good example, but there are others (energy sources to replace oil, overproduction of consumer waste, pollution etc.) Seems like today's societies must learn by sticking their fingers in the proverbial wall socket. So be it. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8337837 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8337837 2. https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/by%3AFD3SA%20science https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/prefix/0/by%3AFD3S...

throwaway5752 12y ago
Sorry in advance that this going a little off topic (though, I would argue it's somewhat pertinent given the historically notable scientific illiteracy in the Ebola coverage/public response). This is a political site, but the author is an expert in healthcare policy: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/10/17/resiliency-is-not-efficient/ http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/10/17/resiliency-is-not-ef... I tend to agree with you and him on the topic that capitalism as practiced in the US currently is a quarter-to-quarter exercise. It doesn't disincentive externalized and systemic risks enough.
- hga 12y ago
  Bleah. The author ignores the very real opportunity costs in preparing "too much" for low probability events.
jerf 12y ago
The CDC was and is plenty funded to deal with this threat. If you think they didn't spend it well, well, join the club. No amount of money is ever "enough" if it not managed responsibly. I'd really appreciate it if those who think the answer is always more government money would start putting more pressure on their goverment to spend it responsibly. I mean that quite straight, not as a snark. It would go a long way towards getting me on the bandwagon of more government spending if it didn't appear to me that the people making this claim didn't always take every opportunity to dodge away from the question of responsibility in practice.
- throwaway5752 12y ago
  It is not. Sorry, $6B annual budget is not a lot in the context of their responsibility, which is substantially greater than ebola [edit: or even outbreak containment in general, for that matter]. In fact, ebola (as evidenced by the lack of transmission to Duncan's own family or any additional caregivers of his [edit: not to mention a lack of host reservoir in NA]) probably and appropriately very low on the CDC's radar, since it is _not_ a public health threat in the US. late edit: To put it in perspective, approximately $3B was the total operating expenses for just Massachusetts General Hospital, alone, in 2012. Or just 50% greater than the 2014 budget for UCSF. Or just half of what Apple spent on SG&A in the 12 months prior to Sept 27.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Common sense is priceless.
  - jerf 12y ago
    Then my point is even more important given the proportion of it actually spent on infectious diseases. If that's so allfired important than why were they doing anything else with that money? The answer, of course, is that it wasn't considered so important until a couple of months ago, and thus, it wouldn't matter how much money was thrown at them, it wouldn't have solved the fundamental priority problem. Contra to some of the press, I took the time to read the CDC's summary budget from the government's website. It wasn't hard to find ("Center for Disease Control" budget). It's full of things that sound superficially wonderful, but none of it matters if it's being spent incompetently or with priorities not connected to the real world, and throwing "more" at such an organization is not a good investment. You can't get away from it. It isn't about more, it's also about what. What matters a lot. Again, I'd be less vocal about not just handing the government more if the advocates of more would pay more attention... much more attention... to what, and how well. But I can't help but notice the advocates of "more" seem to consider that an attack, when in all seriousness they really ought to be leading the charge. If you are an advocate of giving the government more, shouldn't you consider it very important to your own position that what the government already has be used well? You give away an enormous weapon when you leave it solely to your opponents to point out problems!

by FD3SA 12y ago

throwaway5752 12y ago

Sorry in advance that this going a little off topic (though, I would argue it's somewhat pertinent given the historically notable scientific illiteracy in the Ebola coverage/public response). This is a political site, but the author is an expert in healthcare policy: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/10/17/resiliency-is-not-efficient/ http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/10/17/resiliency-is-not-ef... I tend to agree with you and him on the topic that capitalism as practiced in the US currently is a quarter-to-quarter exercise. It doesn't disincentive externalized and systemic risks enough.

hga 12y ago
Bleah. The author ignores the very real opportunity costs in preparing "too much" for low probability events.

jerf 12y ago

The CDC was and is plenty funded to deal with this threat. If you think they didn't spend it well, well, join the club. No amount of money is ever "enough" if it not managed responsibly. I'd really appreciate it if those who think the answer is always more government money would start putting more pressure on their goverment to spend it responsibly. I mean that quite straight, not as a snark. It would go a long way towards getting me on the bandwagon of more government spending if it didn't appear to me that the people making this claim didn't always take every opportunity to dodge away from the question of responsibility in practice.

throwaway5752 12y ago
It is not. Sorry, $6B annual budget is not a lot in the context of their responsibility, which is substantially greater than ebola [edit: or even outbreak containment in general, for that matter]. In fact, ebola (as evidenced by the lack of transmission to Duncan's own family or any additional caregivers of his [edit: not to mention a lack of host reservoir in NA]) probably and appropriately very low on the CDC's radar, since it is _not_ a public health threat in the US. late edit: To put it in perspective, approximately $3B was the total operating expenses for just Massachusetts General Hospital, alone, in 2012. Or just 50% greater than the 2014 budget for UCSF. Or just half of what Apple spent on SG&A in the 12 months prior to Sept 27.
- 001sky 12y ago
  Common sense is priceless.
- jerf 12y ago
  Then my point is even more important given the proportion of it actually spent on infectious diseases. If that's so allfired important than why were they doing anything else with that money? The answer, of course, is that it wasn't considered so important until a couple of months ago, and thus, it wouldn't matter how much money was thrown at them, it wouldn't have solved the fundamental priority problem. Contra to some of the press, I took the time to read the CDC's summary budget from the government's website. It wasn't hard to find ("Center for Disease Control" budget). It's full of things that sound superficially wonderful, but none of it matters if it's being spent incompetently or with priorities not connected to the real world, and throwing "more" at such an organization is not a good investment. You can't get away from it. It isn't about more, it's also about what. What matters a lot. Again, I'd be less vocal about not just handing the government more if the advocates of more would pay more attention... much more attention... to what, and how well. But I can't help but notice the advocates of "more" seem to consider that an attack, when in all seriousness they really ought to be leading the charge. If you are an advocate of giving the government more, shouldn't you consider it very important to your own position that what the government already has be used well? You give away an enormous weapon when you leave it solely to your opponents to point out problems!