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

The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

sensible-med.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 340 posts

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#251

Post by throwyouaway »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #204
btilly wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name me 5 executive orders by Trump which, combined, disrupt normal economic affairs by as much as that single one. As for the broader efforts, the New Deal required various things like reinterpreting the Commerce Clause. Look up "the switch in time which saved nine" for why the Supreme Court went along with it. Not to mention things like the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW 2. No, FDR was the closest thing…

Closest since Lincoln.

Lincoln held the Union together and led to a USA that saved Europe and beyond. He also advocated letting the defeated South “up easy” in an effort to rebuild some sort of national unity after the greatest loss of life we have ever experienced in this nation. Could you imagine Trump doing the same? Lincoln guided us through a national disaster as best as possible for a person to do, I don’t recall him enriching himself either.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#252

Post by amanaplanacanal »

afavour wrote: post #191
jghn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and that's my point. Anyone who truly, honestly "didn't know" doesn't deserve to have a vote.

I’d suggest your viewpoint is a pretty sheltered one. Many people (relatives of mine included, sadly) marinate in a stew of social media algorithms showing them things that confirm their priors and they aren’t exposed to any oppositional media. Perhaps they don’t deserve a vote. But if they don’t then a lot of voters don’t deserve a vote. And maybe we ought to be asking ourselves “what systems have we set up that hav…

Do you expect your relatives will learn anything from this experience? I expect not. Folks who get conned once are more likely to get conned again.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#253

Post by amanaplanacanal »

jfengel wrote: post #62
slater wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can only hope for a blue tsunami for the midterms, though I'm not getting my hopes up.

I can't imagine why 2026 should be any different than 2024. He's doing exactly what he promised. Those who voted for him will still be in favor, at least compared to the alternative. Voters who stayed home will still see no difference between the parties.

As a wise man once said "it's the economy stupid." If their actions tank the economy, which seems a distinct possibility, things could change drastically.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#254

Post by watwut »

bryant wrote: post #2

Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? The courts are themselves slow and ultimately roll up to allies of the despot. People say that the midterms are crucial, but the midterms are only likely to be won if Democrats truly unify and apply winning strategies. Sadly the only winning strategies now seem to involve tell…

elections do not and should not mean that winner gets to ignore existing laws. They should nor mean the winner must operate unopposed without checks and balances.

Tight victory means even less in terms of the mandate.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#255

Post by boroboro4 »

arp242 wrote: post #157
sitkack wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people voted against Trump than voted for. • 77,302,580 voted for this administration (49.8%) • 77,935,722 voted against this administration (50.2%) From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191410

IMHO it's kind of meaningless to count the popular vote as it's not a popular election, which influences the results. Why vote in Texas or California? You already know who will win. Will that balance each other out? Unclear. That said, I do agree with the broader point that a narrow victory shouldn't give full control of the complete (federal) government, especially considering how they're going about things. But fix…

> Why vote in Texas or California

For example because it’s not only president on the ballot. While I don’t think these results are perfectly representative of the support/opposition (for the reasons you describe) they are still representative.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#256

Post by throwyouaway »

scarab92 wrote: post #210
orforforof wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of two factors. First, some direct costs could be prohibited. But more importantly, to make this work universities would need to restructure to make all of their services fee-based, and researchers would need to allocate these fees item by item in their proposals. Which seems doable, but is no way to run an efficient operation. Even if the bottom line looked the same, the value to NIH and taxpayers would…

More likely, overpriced institutions like Harvard will cease to be competitive for grants, and those which offer better value for money will be better placed to submit competitive grant proposals.

Im sure there is fat to be cut but the indirect model eliminates the need to spend so much effort accounting for the 5 minutes this grad student used this piece of shared equipment, 20 minutes that post doc used this equipment. Have you ever had to account for number of sheets of paper printed on a shared printer? Total waste of time when considering the cost of accounting and time of these expensive workers. Indirects are an imperfect solution to a real efficiency problem. I really think the solution is to identify “abusers of the commons”and hold them accountable

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#257

Post by amanaplanacanal »

wyager wrote: post #97
llm_trw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralise government so a single election doesn't destroy everything. In short: states rights.

To Republicans' credit, they have not flipped on states' rights even when they dominate DC. Maybe this is a good time for everyone to (pretend to) be aligned on states' rights and ram through some measures to that end.

There are inklings of a change there. You can see it in things like proposing to prevent women from traveling to another state to get an abortion, or forcing states to assist the federal government with immigration enforcement. I expect we will see more of that if it helps them get to their desired policy goals.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#258

Post by amanaplanacanal »

breadwinner wrote: post #107
bryant wrote: post #2

Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? The courts are themselves slow and ultimately roll up to allies of the despot. People say that the midterms are crucial, but the midterms are only likely to be won if Democrats truly unify and apply winning strategies. Sadly the only winning strategies now seem to involve tell…

> when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies No candidate got a majority of votes. A majority means more than 50% of the votes. In this case, the leading candidate only received 49.5%, which is a plurality, not a majority. What is really happening is that Billionaires are taking advantage of less educated voters by convincing them to vote against their self-interests.…

I can't see the Democrats "shifting to the center" on trans kids when that will lead to more suicides when kids can't get their gender affirming care. That seems bad in every way.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#259

Post by throwaway48476 »

throwyouaway wrote: post #251
throwaway48476 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Closest since Lincoln.

Lincoln held the Union together and led to a USA that saved Europe and beyond. He also advocated letting the defeated South “up easy” in an effort to rebuild some sort of national unity after the greatest loss of life we have ever experienced in this nation. Could you imagine Trump doing the same? Lincoln guided us through a national disaster as best as possible for a person to do, I don’t recall him enriching himsel…

Guided us through a national disaster by starting a war? You don't get credit for guidance if you were the cause of the disaster. The history of America was one of political compromise, that he threw out in favor of war. A lot of people got fabulously rich off the war and then the carpet bagging. And for those that believe it was about slavery then why did the emancipation proclamation free 0 slaves? He exempted the slave counties the union controlled because the goal wasn't an end to slavery. He could have freed the slaves but chose not to.

Re: The NIH is being slashed and burned, not "reformed"

#260

Post by breadwinner »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #258
breadwinner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies No candidate got a majority of votes. A majority means more than 50% of the votes. In this case, the leading candidate only received 49.5%, which is a plurality, not a majority. What is really happening is that Billionaires are taking advantage of less educated voters by convincing them to vote against their self-interests.…

I can't see the Democrats "shifting to the center" on trans kids when that will lead to more suicides when kids can't get their gender affirming care. That seems bad in every way.

You have to be smart about it. Don't make it the debate topic. You know how Trump disclaimed any knowledge of Project 2025 and after he became president, started executing on its vision? That's how you downplay a topic even though it is important to you.
Post reply on HN