20 ms·

My main point was that product-driven start-ups are not going to be able to do the basic science research needed to get revolutionary advances in things like ag

by et2o 11y ago

My main point was that product-driven start-ups are not going to be able to do the basic science research needed to get revolutionary advances in things like aging research. You're complaining about getting only 7 years of protected research time with no real expectation of a viable product: How long will these types of places have? If you're going to call me out on my vested interested in NIH funding, I think you should acknowledge you have a pretty similar (opposite) conflict of interest :) Certainly the NIH basic science funding situation right now is absolutely dismal. However, it's ludicrous to suggest that the reason is because of some lack of "accountability." It's also not exclusively "clueless program managers" who are choosing how funds are disbursed: There are panels full of (decidedly) non-clueless professors who do that. The real reason is because there are more PhDs than there used to be, more professors than there used to be, more people applying for grants than there used to be, and NIH funding has become nominally stagnant (declining in real dollars) after a period of massive expansion. I'm not arguing that getting a faculty position is definitely something of a crapshoot, especially if you aren't a dual-degree candidate and don't have a clinical aspect to your work that you can fall back on.

dnautics 11y ago
What's my conflict of interest? I'm not paid by my nonprofit, and it doesn't do basic research. I think you missed my point. If the smartest are leaving academia, then the professors that are reviewing grants and papers ARE clueless. How did Arsenic Life get through review with glowing reviewer comments? How is it that Reza Ghadiri got $6M to pursue DNA nanopore research sequencing with zero previous experience in the field? I could go on and on. As for alternatives for basic science, the idea that science must be funded by either the NIH or startups (or even industry writ large) is a false dichotomy: consider Peter Mitchell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell It's also worth noting that one of the most major medical advances of the 20th century, the eradication of polio, was done similarly without the NIH.
- et2o 11y ago
  I know I probably invited inflammatory responses by suggesting that the best PhD students are able to stay in academia, which I admit is an overgeneralization. From what I see (and this is getting more personal than I'd like to from a response to my lighthearted comment) you left academia to work at a pharmaceutical (non-profit) company you started. I may have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize. I do think it's a bit beside the point to be arguing about this instead of the ideas, but so be it. Peter Mitchell was exceptional, as was every other Nobel Prize Winner, the vast majority (the rest?) who were academics. If you're arguing that moving to a model where individual scientists soliciting charity for their research is better, I would have to disagree. You think the general public is better able to assess research value than the NIH?
  - dnautics 11y ago
    It is not just an overgeneralization, it is basically a dangerous defense of the status quo, that doesn't match up with reality. The problem is largely that science has become a kleptocratic system where there's even a term 'grantsmanship' that everyone knows involves a level of dishonesty and overselling. If you'd like for your scientific leaders to be polluted, at a fundamental level, with this toxic attitude, then perhaps you deserve the scientific system we have now. On a personal level, I find it to also be a very distressing appeal to authority - "well these people are professors because clearly they deserve to be"... I mean, I have worked under/with professors who definitely deserve it (Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison, Dan Gibson, Vanessa Hayes, Jeff Kelly, my boss at the University of Maryland - who does incidentally now work for the NIH, but is planning on quitting) but there is a very, very long list of professors who do not... I'm not really going to name too many names for obvious reasons.
    - jcfrei 11y ago
      The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations. Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.
zo1 11y ago
>"If you're going to call me out on my vested interested in NIH funding, I think you should acknowledge you have a pretty similar (opposite) conflict of interest :)" Why, what would the opposite of being in the NIH be? I don't get it what you're trying to say about the person that "called you out" on the NIH link and your opinions.
- et2o 11y ago
  Someone who left the NIH system to work at a biotech company Because I can't reply below: It's a little disingenuous to suggest you never benefitted from the NIH system if you've gotten a PhD at a life-sciences institution. Nearly all of the money at these types of places comes from the NIH, even if you were never specifically on an NIH grant.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    I've never worked for the NIH (I've never even applied for an NIH grant, and I was only paid off of one for maybe 6 months), and I certainly don't work for a biotech.

by et2o 11y ago

dnautics 11y ago

What's my conflict of interest? I'm not paid by my nonprofit, and it doesn't do basic research. I think you missed my point. If the smartest are leaving academia, then the professors that are reviewing grants and papers ARE clueless. How did Arsenic Life get through review with glowing reviewer comments? How is it that Reza Ghadiri got $6M to pursue DNA nanopore research sequencing with zero previous experience in the field? I could go on and on. As for alternatives for basic science, the idea that science must be funded by either the NIH or startups (or even industry writ large) is a false dichotomy: consider Peter Mitchell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell It's also worth noting that one of the most major medical advances of the 20th century, the eradication of polio, was done similarly without the NIH.

et2o 11y ago
I know I probably invited inflammatory responses by suggesting that the best PhD students are able to stay in academia, which I admit is an overgeneralization. From what I see (and this is getting more personal than I'd like to from a response to my lighthearted comment) you left academia to work at a pharmaceutical (non-profit) company you started. I may have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize. I do think it's a bit beside the point to be arguing about this instead of the ideas, but so be it. Peter Mitchell was exceptional, as was every other Nobel Prize Winner, the vast majority (the rest?) who were academics. If you're arguing that moving to a model where individual scientists soliciting charity for their research is better, I would have to disagree. You think the general public is better able to assess research value than the NIH?
- dnautics 11y ago
  It is not just an overgeneralization, it is basically a dangerous defense of the status quo, that doesn't match up with reality. The problem is largely that science has become a kleptocratic system where there's even a term 'grantsmanship' that everyone knows involves a level of dishonesty and overselling. If you'd like for your scientific leaders to be polluted, at a fundamental level, with this toxic attitude, then perhaps you deserve the scientific system we have now. On a personal level, I find it to also be a very distressing appeal to authority - "well these people are professors because clearly they deserve to be"... I mean, I have worked under/with professors who definitely deserve it (Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison, Dan Gibson, Vanessa Hayes, Jeff Kelly, my boss at the University of Maryland - who does incidentally now work for the NIH, but is planning on quitting) but there is a very, very long list of professors who do not... I'm not really going to name too many names for obvious reasons.
  - jcfrei 11y ago
    The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations. Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.

zo1 11y ago

>"If you're going to call me out on my vested interested in NIH funding, I think you should acknowledge you have a pretty similar (opposite) conflict of interest :)" Why, what would the opposite of being in the NIH be? I don't get it what you're trying to say about the person that "called you out" on the NIH link and your opinions.

et2o 11y ago
Someone who left the NIH system to work at a biotech company Because I can't reply below: It's a little disingenuous to suggest you never benefitted from the NIH system if you've gotten a PhD at a life-sciences institution. Nearly all of the money at these types of places comes from the NIH, even if you were never specifically on an NIH grant.
- dnautics 11y ago
  I've never worked for the NIH (I've never even applied for an NIH grant, and I was only paid off of one for maybe 6 months), and I certainly don't work for a biotech.