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

NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 100 posts

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#41

Post by cute_boi »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #30
kingleopold wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please understand that so many high IQ tech and science people support this, they voted and decided.

Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? I’m not asking out of anger I genuinely don’t get it. Culture war issues like, idk, people becoming more brown by default in America, or a trans teenager participating in a game, they’re… they don’t seem as important as ensuring well funded science??

There are many reasons. Many high IQ people don’t want to lose their jobs and favor stricter immigration policies. They would probably vote for Democrats if Democrats weren’t so lax on immigration.

And, many of my friends who were doing PHD they used to follow dems, but are now supporting republicans after they got citizenship....

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#42

Post by epistasis »

userbinator wrote: post #37
jltsiren wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big pharma is not like Bell Labs of old. Their researchers are expected to do work their bosses consider productive. They have no need for people who want to do curiosity-driven research and release the results to the public.

Big pharma is not like Bell Labs of old. Then maybe this is a sign that things should change back towards that direction.

Even Bell Labs would not be doing the type of research that is necessary. Look at all the innovation in science that happened back then! Bell Labs was an outlier but it was not the primary driver of science by any means.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#43

Post by userbinator »

epistasis wrote: post #42
userbinator wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big pharma is not like Bell Labs of old. Then maybe this is a sign that things should change back towards that direction.

Even Bell Labs would not be doing the type of research that is necessary. Look at all the innovation in science that happened back then! Bell Labs was an outlier but it was not the primary driver of science by any means.

You're right, there were many other companies doing it too. General Electric, General Motors, Sylvania, etc.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#44

Post by virtue3 »

spankibalt wrote: post #39
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? I’m not asking out of anger I genuinely don’t get it. Culture war issues like, idk, people becoming more brown by default in America, or a trans teenager participating in a game, they’re… they don’t seem as important as ensuring well funded science??

> Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding? The list is long. First and foremost, it's never a good idea to forget that wherever there's intelligence there's always also stupidity. Then it's generally good advice not to confuse intelligence for wisdom. And between this and very long lists of cognitive biases, there's always the good old "Fuck ya, got mine!" Rule of Acquisition to reme…

good ole Rule of Acquisition #1 - Once you have their money, you never give it back.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#45

Post by deadbunny »

numpad0 wrote: post #40
Nextgrid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?

I know this isn't HN type of a topic or a comment, but looking at US from outside, the theme looks to be explicitly destroying US hegemony and meritocracy... What I feel to be a common denominator for Trump, Thiel/Musk, and MAGA types, is that they are the people who "otherwise wouldn't have been chosen" for one reason or another. I've had stupidly engaged in a pointless argument with MAGA type people on some anonymo…

Narcissist doesn't start with L...

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#46

Post by tty456 »

oh_my_goodness wrote: post #4

Please understand that the goal of these policies is to weaken scientific research in the US. The people who push this stuff acknowledge openly that they oppose science, experts, and accurate information. This isn't a misunderstanding or a fumble.

They're deliberately weakening the U.S. Treason.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#47

Post by epistasis »

userbinator wrote: post #43
epistasis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Bell Labs would not be doing the type of research that is necessary. Look at all the innovation in science that happened back then! Bell Labs was an outlier but it was not the primary driver of science by any means.

You're right, there were many other companies doing it too. General Electric, General Motors, Sylvania, etc.

That's not what I was saying. The foundational research that built the massive economic engine of the current US did not come from industrial research.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#48

Post by b40d-48b2-979e »

numpad0 wrote: post #40
Nextgrid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?

I know this isn't HN type of a topic or a comment, but looking at US from outside, the theme looks to be explicitly destroying US hegemony and meritocracy... What I feel to be a common denominator for Trump, Thiel/Musk, and MAGA types, is that they are the people who "otherwise wouldn't have been chosen" for one reason or another. I've had stupidly engaged in a pointless argument with MAGA type people on some anonymo…

It was never a meritocracy. That's a lie to keep the workers in line.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#49

Post by bigbadfeline »

Nextgrid wrote: post #20
oh_my_goodness wrote: post #4

Please understand that the goal of these policies is to weaken scientific research in the US. The people who push this stuff acknowledge openly that they oppose science, experts, and accurate information. This isn't a misunderstanding or a fumble.

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind it? I can understand (not saying I approve) targeted opposition to specific scientific claims to favor commercial interests (climate change denial to favor oil & gas, etc), but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive in the long run and directly hurt industries like pharma/etc?

> but wouldn't a general anti-science movement make the country less competitive

It's not "a general anti-science movement", it's about tight control, everything else is unimportant.

> directly hurt industries like pharma/etc

Not a problem if tight control is in place.

Re: NIH is ending a key grant for budding clinical researchers

#50

Post by CamperBob2 »

gpm wrote: post #36
fnordpiglet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many is a misnomer for “some.” The current administration won by a plurality, 49%, not even a majority. This was 32% of possible voters. Of people with a PhD, approximately 30% voted for Trump. Of Trump voters 1% had a PhD. This is still many people, but only in that “many” is more than a “few.” It’s not the case that most people voted for Trump, or even most voters. Or even most phds who voted. 70% of phds who voted…

30% doesn't seem anywhere near as low as it should be though... I'd say that qualifies as "so many". That said I question both your and grandparents choice to look at only people who chose to vote. 68% of people who could have voted against this did not - either actively supporting it with a vote or deciding that they didn't give a fuck if it happened by not voting. Every potential voter either knew or ought to have…

The truly sobering statistic is that after all we've seen, 39% of the electorate still approves of him.
Post reply on HN