31–40 of 45 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i would have hoped they figured that out 1.2 billion $ ago
if they were spending their own hard-earned cash they most likely would have been more careful like that
Wow, $1.3 billion is a huge amount for a single study. For comparison, the Framingham Heart Study, going on 65 years, has an annual budget of about $10 million: (Concerns that the 2013 sequester would cut about $4 million, about 40% of its budget here: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2013/10/09/framing... ) Any good accounts of how the $1.3B was spent?
Am I misunderstanding things? From reading the linked article, there was $1.3 billion spent studying whether we should actually undertake the study. Not the actual study itself (which presumably would cost significantly more?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i would have hoped they figured that out 1.2 billion $ ago
if they were spending their own hard-earned cash they most likely would have been more careful like that
Also, most NIH-funded researchers have gotten quite used to continual budget cuts, uncertainty, and needing to make every cent count. "Expensive" does not equal wasteful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you kidding me? NASA is your idea of a successful lean government project? Elon Musk is doing what NASA couldn't with a tiny fraction of their budget.
And how far along would Elon Musk and SpaceX be without the decades of research, development, testing, and real-world experimentation done previously by NASA and other government R&D efforts? Your argument presupposes SpaceX hasn't benefited from the previous work done before. Which they have, immensely. Stop reducing complex systems into simple certainties. It's insulting to the entire community of scientists that h…
Wow, $1.3 billion is a huge amount for a single study. For comparison, the Framingham Heart Study, going on 65 years, has an annual budget of about $10 million: (Concerns that the 2013 sequester would cut about $4 million, about 40% of its budget here: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/blog/2013/10/09/framing... ) Any good accounts of how the $1.3B was spent?
Am I misunderstanding things? From reading the linked article, there was $1.3 billion spent studying whether we should actually undertake the study. Not the actual study itself (which presumably would cost significantly more?)
To use the space program analogy I advanced before, it would be like running Gemini and Mercury, then deciding to scrap the Apollo program because things weren't working out. A lot of science was done just laying the groundwork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I misunderstanding things? From reading the linked article, there was $1.3 billion spent studying whether we should actually undertake the study. Not the actual study itself (which presumably would cost significantly more?)
They spent money on a lot of things: - Trying to figure out how the heck to enroll people (vanguard study) - Decide which variables are worth tracking, and actually trackable. Every variable they track will cost a tonne, if they don't track a variable and decide they need later it's too late. - Figure out how long they will successfully be able to track people, will they lose 5% a year? 10%? Is there a huge cliff whe…
Now it sounds to me like when a corporation or large federal agency fails in implementing a new or upgraded software system because the process has become unmanageable. From your perspective in both worlds (setting aside the results published so far) does that analogy capture it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are you kidding me? NASA is your idea of a successful lean government project? Elon Musk is doing what NASA couldn't with a tiny fraction of their budget.
He didn't use the word lean. NASA has gone to the moon. It is as of yet unclear whether the likes of Musk can pull that off. It seems intuitively likely that some things are best done by/funded through the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They spent money on a lot of things: - Trying to figure out how the heck to enroll people (vanguard study) - Decide which variables are worth tracking, and actually trackable. Every variable they track will cost a tonne, if they don't track a variable and decide they need later it's too late. - Figure out how long they will successfully be able to track people, will they lose 5% a year? 10%? Is there a huge cliff whe…
Thanks for the insights. OK, that makes more sense and I can see the utility of the published results. Now it sounds to me like when a corporation or large federal agency fails in implementing a new or upgraded software system because the process has become unmanageable. From your perspective in both worlds (setting aside the results published so far) does that analogy capture it?
It would be more like...if you rolled out an upgraded software system in a couple departments, collected some feedback, and decided not to go with the company wide rollout.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I misunderstanding things? From reading the linked article, there was $1.3 billion spent studying whether we should actually undertake the study. Not the actual study itself (which presumably would cost significantly more?)
They spent money on a lot of things: - Trying to figure out how the heck to enroll people (vanguard study) - Decide which variables are worth tracking, and actually trackable. Every variable they track will cost a tonne, if they don't track a variable and decide they need later it's too late. - Figure out how long they will successfully be able to track people, will they lose 5% a year? 10%? Is there a huge cliff whe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if they were spending their own hard-earned cash they most likely would have been more careful like that
Most of the researchers are U.S. citizens, so in effect they are. Also, most NIH-funded researchers have gotten quite used to continual budget cuts, uncertainty, and needing to make every cent count. "Expensive" does not equal wasteful.