Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

climate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 349 posts

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#321

Post by mike_hearn »

abduhl wrote: post #298
mike_hearn wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California…

It’s rare to find someone argue that confirming only 25% of a massive amount of output enabled only because of the in place system is a good reason to eliminate the system. It’s kind of like saying “solar panels are only 20% efficient, so are you sure the sun is critical for the solar energy industry?”

That's not what the stat says. It says only 25% of findings selected specifically for sounding important replicated for that particular company, not that 25% of output overall does. And replicable doesn't mean correct or useful, it's just the first step. There are lots of ways for a study to replicate yet be wrong.

25% is crazy low, but 11% is even lower. If someone told you things and 90% of the time they were wrong, you'd stop listening.

Solar panels having low effectiveness would actually be a good argument against them, because although the solar industry needs solar panels the correct comparison is with the energy industry overall, which doesn't.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#322

Post by mike_hearn »

throwup238 wrote: post #304
mike_hearn wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California…

> That was 15 years ago. There was no serious effort to improve, and VCs are still much more interested in computing startups than biotech. No, they’re not. Biotech VC has been bigger than tech VC in terms of absolute funding for decades (based on annual data from the Venture Capital Association). Most years its not even close. Pharmaceutical companies do depend on NIH funding but indirectly: most of their products a…

Could you show me where you're getting that data? Not saying you're wrong, it's just that this contradicts everything I've heard before and I can't find counter-evidence. I checked the NVCA's latest data pack (which is excellent) and it seems to agree with me that tech dwarfs pharma.

https://nvca.org/document/q4-2024-pitchbook-nvca-venture-mon...

If you go to "Deals x Sector" and then scroll down they split out deals by dollar value by sector and software alone is $89.2B vs $25.3B for pharma last year. But software isn't all of the tech industry, they also have a row for IT hardware startups which is $8.2B. Adding it up the tech industry sees 4x more money flowing into it than pharma despite that most tech startups are selling optional nice-to-haves to people who buy from their own pocket, vs pharma who sells stuff that might be life-critical to people who socialize the costs via insurance.

In theory, pharma should dwarf tech. You can't say no to a life saving drug if you need it: it should be easy money. In practice, the VCs interviewed in my source seem to have it right - pharma VC is much less competitive overall.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#323

Post by mike_hearn »

jacobolus wrote: post #300
mike_hearn wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California…

To take one single simple example, the mRNA vaccines that saved tens of millions of lives during the Covid pandemic (earning a lot of money for the companies that produced them), and are one of the most promising technologies for many other vaccines, cancer treatments, etc. would have been completely impossible without decades of NIH funding. Bayer might find individual academic studies to be poor basis for starting…

Industry already pays higher salaries, the purpose of funding scientific research IS in fact productization even if not immediate, and new product development can't be said to be dependent on open research if 90% of the time the claims don't replicate. If anything it's the opposite, product development would depend on not wasting all your budget on replicating false claims.

> Funding scientific research is among the highest leverage things the US government can do.

A deeply subjective claim asserted as obvious fact. It can just as easily be argued that governments could spend nothing on scientific research and progress would occur at the same rate or even faster.

As for the mRNA vaccines, just be aware that this is a bad example to use for the wonders of government science. Lots of people who carefully checked the data and studies at the time realized the mRNA vaccines didn't work and public health agencies were lying about their effectiveness, as they lied about so many other things. Later on many other people realized this too, usually after taking several boosters and still getting infected repeatedly.

There are better and less controversial examples to cite if you want examples of government funded science with high impact (e.g. AlexNet), but it's not enough to point to a handful of examples. You have to show that they'd have never happened otherwise, which is impossible to show as usually it's clear that they would.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#324

Post by mike_hearn »

convolvatron wrote: post #255
mike_hearn wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California…

I'm not well enough versed in the level of commercialization of NIH research. But even assuming it was all trash, currently that's where all of the commercial researchers come from - NIH funds research at universities, that funds grad students through their practicum, and provides a candidate pool for Pharma. whether or not the current system for producing researchers is optimal, there doesn't seem to be another cand…

Plenty of industries train in house, and there's no specific reason why teaching and research have to go hand in hand. Actually rather the opposite, the connection between these things is rather artificial and you don't find it outside of grant-funded universities.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#325

Post by johnisgood »

casper14 wrote: post #152
throwaway2037 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They take quite a toll on ... people living in the area. How?

Honestly, it's the sound. If you live close enough, it will drive you insane.

I moved to a house that has the main road on my side. I do not wish it to anyone. I cannot stand noise, and I hear cars 24/7, ambulance at least 10 times a day if not more, and they turn on the siren even at 3 am when there is no traffic because of some specific laws.

I also got a cat (against my will, but gotta take care of her) who wakes me up around 4:30-06:00. :|

I cannot stand the noise pollution. It makes me want to live by the countryside even more.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#326

Post by xaldir »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #100
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why acknowledgment of climate change would lead to nuclear over solar/wind.

There seems to be a delusional part of the Internet that is convinced that nuclear is the only future, and solar and wind aren’t. To settle this, you basically need to look at what China is doing —- which is to build a lot of nuclear and then exponentially more solar and wind. We’re a huge percentage of the way down the slide to a mostly renewable world with storage, and some nuclear at the edges. But it isn’t a comp…

>look at what China is doing

China needs everything it can build and more. It's not much the what but rather where, when and how much that is crucial.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#327

Post by jordanb »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #267
joezydeco wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too late! NOAA's budget is getting slashed and they're stopping weather balloon launches, starting with the plains states. Good luck with those turbulence forecasts! https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2025/03/21/wea...

That's not what the poorly written article actually says. They are launching one baloon a day instead of two. You might think the article is being intentionally misleading with working like, "NWS issued a public information statement announcing that is is temporarily suspending the frequency of weather balloon launches at some of Weather Forecast Offices".

50% reduction in the number of observations is a big deal.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#328

Post by epistasis »

Auracle wrote: post #206
treyd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane. I don't understand what could possibly be the justification there.

Seems pretty clear to me - Trump is trying to cut costs for our government. He sees we’re spending all that money on forecasting and data that everyone else uses for free, and gets paid for it. Therefore, that data is worth something and the government should get a piece of the pie. I don’t necessarily agree but it’s somewhat logical.

I don't think the "cut costs" is an accurate framing of intent or outcome here. High costs are not being cut, but individual programs that are cheap but have every high positive impact are getting completely whacked. Such as the National Weather Service, there are reports all across the country of not having enough staff to launch the necessary number of weather balloons or generate reports that cover 24 hours of the day, leading to very small cost savings but massive inefficiency. Meanwhile massive contracts out to failing defense programs are untouched, and military spending is being massively increased far beyond what the military even asks for. Add to that the massive IRS staff reductions and tax cheats are having a hey day, with more than $500B lost to that already, which is 10x our entire science budget, which is actively getting slashed.

The goal is to assert dominance and to punish anybody that, as a group, was unlikely to vote for Trump and who Trump voters don't like, such as scientists.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#329

Post by joezydeco »

jordanb wrote: post #327
WillPostForFood wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the poorly written article actually says. They are launching one baloon a day instead of two. You might think the article is being intentionally misleading with working like, "NWS issued a public information statement announcing that is is temporarily suspending the frequency of weather balloon launches at some of Weather Forecast Offices".

50% reduction in the number of observations is a big deal.

And this is just the start.

Re: The polar vortex is hitting the brakes

#330

Post by [deleted] »

mike_hearn wrote: post #323
jacobolus wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To take one single simple example, the mRNA vaccines that saved tens of millions of lives during the Covid pandemic (earning a lot of money for the companies that produced them), and are one of the most promising technologies for many other vaccines, cancer treatments, etc. would have been completely impossible without decades of NIH funding. Bayer might find individual academic studies to be poor basis for starting…

Industry already pays higher salaries, the purpose of funding scientific research IS in fact productization even if not immediate, and new product development can't be said to be dependent on open research if 90% of the time the claims don't replicate. If anything it's the opposite, product development would depend on not wasting all your budget on replicating false claims. > Funding scientific research is among the…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN