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

61–70 of 100 posts

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

#61

Post by amelius »

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?

To make it easier to push "alternative truths".

I think the plan might be to reinstate science in some form after they have grabbed full control of the country.

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

#62

Post by plastic-enjoyer »

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??

> Why did many high IQ tech and science people vote for their own defunding?

Because a high IQ and a science degree does not mean that those people make good political decisions. A lot of political decision making is driven by ideology and identity. A lot of high IQ people may have strong mathematical and problem solving skills, but are morons in absolutely every other aspect of life.

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

#63

Post by Arodex »

sixothree wrote: post #35
somethinsfishy wrote: post #25

Derek Lowe sees darker motives in the program of cuts to Federal research grants in NIH and NFS. I don't know how to fix some of the problems with how and to whom grants are awarded, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater, deliberately, looks like the very bad kind of malice. (I think this article may have been referenced on HN.) https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/assault-science-fu...

If I had been told a foreign adversary had broadly infiltrated our government at the highest levels, I would have a hard time differentiating between that and what is currently happening.

There is little need for a foreign adversary - the USA is incredibly anti-science for a supposed "first world" country. They are still debating teaching creationism, for decades now. Even in the doldrums of Europe, you don't have that kind of retarded stuff.

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

#64

Post by smallmancontrov »

YeahThisIsMe wrote: post #54
afpx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.

The fraud is the point with this administration.

Who has time to talk about billions in emoluments and pumping+dumping the American Economy to insider trade war news when we are subject to such calamitous fraud as a wet-behind-the-ears PhD getting overly enthusiastic in their grant proposal?

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

#65

Post by 999900000999 »

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?

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

For example, the Security of War recently had a well produced video saying we're going to do anyway with vaccine mandates for the military.

>Hegseth announced in late April that he was making the annual flu vaccine voluntary for service members "effective immediately." In a video posted to social media, Hegseth said requiring people to get vaccinated was "overly broad and not rational."

>By early May, all military departments had formally requested exemptions that allow them to keep requiring flu vaccinations for certain service members, and those exemptions were granted in early June, according to the congressional staffer. The exemptions typically apply to vulnerable populations like people who live in communal environments, healthcare workers and other categories, the staffer said

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/military-flu-vaccine-recruits-h...

See that pesky reality thing.

Trying to understand conservative thought is to go into a bizarre twilight zone where vaccines cause autism, do more harm than good, and at the same time our " adversaries" deliberately created illnesses which can be prevented by vaccines.

Then again, maybe the illnesses are designed to get more people vaccinated, in order to spread autism.

Behind it all.

Big Train of course.

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

#66

Post by WhitneyLand »

afpx wrote: post #51
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 should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.

Why would you bring up fraud in the midst of science research in the US being burned to the ground?

Fraud is not the reason it is happening. Even the people who are making the cuts in this case have clarified the purported reason and it has nothing to do with fraud.

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

#67

Post by userbinator »

epistasis wrote: post #47
userbinator wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "massive economic engine of the current US" is certainly the result of large companies' research. They have all been very open about that, so do you have any proof to the contrary?

More examples: IBM, Kodak, Xerox...

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

#68

Post by analog31 »

kingleopold wrote: post #29
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.

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

I'm surrounded by scientists, in my family, at my day job, and in my community, as I live in the shadow of a major research university. Support for the current administration in recent elections has fallen somewhere between slim and none. In fact I can't think of another identifiable group of people who have been more unanimous in their opposition.

On the other hand I can't defined "tech" people, but maybe someone else can. I don't lump "tech and science" together as a single group.

Disclosure: Scientist.

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

#69

Post by fastaguy88 »

afpx wrote: post #51
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 should be incentivizing researchers who have histories of publishing research that has been independently replicated. Way too much fraud going on that’s seeping into the real world.

There is a fixed (decreasing) budget for research.

What should be the balance between repeating things that have already been done, and expanding knowledge?

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

#70

Post by bonoboTP »

amelius wrote: post #61
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?

To make it easier to push "alternative truths". I think the plan might be to reinstate science in some form after they have grabbed full control of the country.

"Alternative facts" vs "other ways of knowing". Great choices that America has. Objective science is off the table for both camps.
Post reply on HN