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

How the U.S. became a science superpower

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 529 posts

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#311

Post by conception »

WalterBright wrote: post #288
bch wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Libertarians took over a town in NH and abolished town wide garbage collection. Presumably this is the case you’re citing: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...

That sounds like a case of "Tragedy of the Commons", which is not free market. Also, police is a requirement because libertarianism relies on government to protect peoples' rights. Gutting the police department is what anarchists do, not libertarians. If you want to know of a successful libertarian experiement, see the founding of the United States. (Excluding the slave states, of course. Slavery is antiethical to li…

You mean the Articles of Confederation that failed because the government wasn’t strong enough?

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#312

Post by nurettin »

grafmax wrote: post #174
jack_h wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 2025, with the abandonment of U.S. government support for university research, the long run of U.S. dominance in science may be over. I find it amazing that this is the conclusion when earlier in the article it was stated that "[Britain] was teetering on bankruptcy. It couldn’t afford the broad and deep investments that the U.S. made." The US debt is starting to become an existential problem. Last year the secon…

The idea that the free market will self-correct and optimize outcomes is a well-documented fantasy. Markets don’t account for externalities, they concentrate wealth (and therefore political power), and they routinely underprovide merit goods like education, healthcare, and basic research (things that benefit society broadly but aren’t immediately profitable). As for how to address budget issues, the solution is simpl…

Tax the rich, the rich hike prices, inflation. Please find another magic wand, that one does not work.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#313

Post by Fomite »

fallingknife wrote: post #190
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're clearly not involved even remotely in academia and are just parroting bullshit you saw on your news outlet. What's even the point when you can just declare "no, it's totally a problem and they can just magically make money appear and I'm totally aware of the negotiation process for grants". Good Lord.

I can see I've hit a nerve here. But it's ok. I understand that the fact that private research grants contain indirect percentages less than half of the federal rate and yet still the universities not refuse them is a very difficult thing for you to argue against. It's understandable that you would resort to appeals to authority and ad hominems when you can't present a logical argument.

A couple things:

1) We refuse them when we can. Like if you have a lower indirect rate, my institution's policy is that has to be located somewhere that's documented, you can't just do it. I did have one where the sponsored programs folks just said no.

2) As mentioned, they're sort of a drop in the bucket, and also important to junior faculty, so they're a little bit accepted as loss leaders.

3) At several institutions, it was made clear to me that if you relied on these, and not "full fat" grants, by the time you came up for tenure, things would be bad.

The great irony is every research administrator I know (and I know a lot) sort of hates these. If they had wanted to, "You cannot charge a private organization a indirect rate lower than your negotiated federal rate of the same type" (there are different rates depending on the nature of the project) would probably have been met with "Yeah, that tracks."

Instead, they're trying to use it as an excuse to absolutely gut research.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#314

Post by Fomite »

fallingknife wrote: post #167
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of research funding, and quite frankly repeating it without even basic research borders on negligence. Universities use indirect funds for maintaining facilities, the shared equipment, bulk purchases of materials, staff for things like cleaning and disposal. It is pivotal that these funds are available in the right amount or research physically cannot happen despite being "indir…

I do not believe that sharing costs of facilities and equipment is so difficult that research universities can't handle it while every condo association in the US somehow manages to pull it off. I do not believe you that this is aggressively negotiated down by the government because private research grants come with much lower indirect costs percentages. > Can university administration be trimmed? Can their heads be…

> Good idea! Maybe we can limit how much they can spend on overhead. Oh, wait...

These rates are negotiated with the federal government. There's already a mechanism for this.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#315

Post by Fomite »

rayiner wrote: post #8
b_emery wrote: post #2

If you read nothing else in this excellent post, read the conclusion: > A key component of this U.S. research ecosystem was the genius of the indirect cost reimbursement system. Not only did the U.S. fund researchers in universities by paying the cost of their salaries, the U.S. gave universities money for the researchers facilities and administration. This was the secret sauce that allowed U.S. universities to build…

[flagged]

Things indirect cost reimbursements fund at my institution:

- The research animal facilities - HPC staff, upgrades, etc. - Our BSL-3 facilities (the only ones for a long way) - Various and sundry research cores - New faculty startup funds

Those are all pretty tightly correlated with success, and very difficult to support via single grants.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#316

Post by Fomite »

zusammen wrote: post #83

“Indirect costs” were accepted on the theory that this would be used to create job security for professors who did useful work but were not able to secure direct funding. Spoiler alert: That job security doesn’t exist anymore. A professor who isn’t winning grants, even if tenured, is functionally dead. Research doesn’t matter except as PR and teaching definitely doesn’t matter; the ability to raise grants is the sing…

> “Indirect costs” were accepted on the theory that this would be used to create job security for professors who did useful work but were not able to secure direct funding.

This is an argument that I have literally never heard, despite being in academia a long time.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#317

Post by _Algernon_ »

WalterBright wrote: post #288
bch wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Libertarians took over a town in NH and abolished town wide garbage collection. Presumably this is the case you’re citing: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...

That sounds like a case of "Tragedy of the Commons", which is not free market. Also, police is a requirement because libertarianism relies on government to protect peoples' rights. Gutting the police department is what anarchists do, not libertarians. If you want to know of a successful libertarian experiement, see the founding of the United States. (Excluding the slave states, of course. Slavery is antiethical to li…

No true scotsman

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#318

Post by anon7000 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #205
grafmax wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the free market will self-correct and optimize outcomes is a well-documented fantasy. Markets don’t account for externalities, they concentrate wealth (and therefore political power), and they routinely underprovide merit goods like education, healthcare, and basic research (things that benefit society broadly but aren’t immediately profitable). As for how to address budget issues, the solution is simpl…

> The idea that the free market will self-correct and optimize outcomes is a well-documented fantasy. There are far too many documented instances of it actually working to call it a fantasy. > Markets don’t account for externalities Markets aren't expected to account for externalities. Externalities are the things you're supposed to tax. > they concentrate wealth (and therefore political power) You're describing regu…

> Is it so simple? The highest marginal tax rate in the US is 50.3% (37% federal + 13.3% state in California). The highest marginal tax rate in Norway is 47.4%.

Sure. It’s not simple. But you’re missing a lot of the picture too. People with high wealth and ownership can leverage massive loopholes (like taking a loan with stock as collateral) which means they pay very little effective tax on their “income”: https://www.profgalloway.com/earners-vs-owners-2/

The solution is surely not the status quo.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#319

Post by elcritch »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #157
jack_h wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

Ok. You never know what you are going to hear on HN :)

Fine I’ll oblige. :P

I believe hastening it (momentarily) has been good. Well the looming debt issue as I understand this subthread to be about.

Like a patient getting indigestion and goes to the ER thinking it's a heat attack, only to find it’s not but his cholesterol and BP is through the roof and he needs blood pressure meds asap.

Trumps tactics has caused much more attention on the matter. Tariffs can be reduced, etc, but hopefully bringing a wake up call will help avoid catastrophe.

No idea if that was part of Trumps plan or just bumbling, but I believe it’ll be good long term.

I’ve been reading lots of dystopian sci-fi fearing hyperinflation in the near future in the US and then Europe. Now it seems people are taking it a bit more seriously. Even this comment chain shows that.

Then again I’m also encouraged by Argentina’s response after 70-80 years of hyperinflation and stagnation. Javier Milei‘s policies appear to be working contrary to the prediction of most everyone beforehand.

Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower

#320

Post by lawn »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #229
MarkusWandel wrote: post #155

It also didn't hurt that a certain European science superpower started purging academics based on ideology, said academics being more than welcome in the USA. Wait a minute...

I'm pretty sure the US is currently pushing for merit-based admission.

I'm pretty sure you need to start looking at what they're doing (selecting for obedience over competence) than what they're saying (DEI is the root of all problems).
Post reply on HN