3 ms·
> This is a staggeringly bad idea. Why? Where do I begin? Well, first of all, biomedical research costs money–lots of money. Everyone I know in biomedical resea
by michaelkeenan 11y ago
> This is a staggeringly bad idea. Why? Where do I begin? Well, first of all, biomedical research costs money–lots of money. Everyone I know in biomedical research, in which I’ve been working for 25 years, needs money before they make their discoveries. A prize at the end is nice, but you can’t do anything if you can’t pay for equipment, supplies, and (perhaps Congress will be surprised to learn this) people’s salaries.
This point would be more powerful if he explained it in the context of the DARPA and XPRIZE competitions. Spaceships are surely expensive, but multiple teams were funded. Is there a reason that won't happen for the NIH prizes?
> NIH will give these prizes to foreign citizens–and companies! So apparently they will take some portion of NIH’s budget, and instead of awarding it in grants to U.S. scientists, they will give prizes to companies in, say, Russia. Don’t get me wrong: I think science should be supported in every country around the world. But each country has its own system, and the NIH is by far the most important source of funding for biomedical science in the U.S. We just can’t afford to have NIH give out prizes to the entire world.
I don't think it follows that because each country has its own science system, then the US can't afford to give prizes to the entire world. The prizes won't be higher if they're given to international teams; they just might be awarded earlier. Surely it would be more expensive (at least in time) to restrict it by country, because someone else might be able to make the advance faster than the US.
It appears that the author isn't motivated by advancing science, but by funding American scientists. If American scientists need or deserve more money, that should be addressed separately from how to advance scientific progress most quickly. There are probably ways to accomplish giving Americans more money that don't slow down scientific progress.