Live data from Hacker News

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

sensible-med.com

321–330 of 340 posts

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

#321
post #53

if they were honestly trying to improve things, the cuts would be phased in over a few funding cycles at a minimum. it's hard to see surprise cuts as anything more than willful vandalism and a gift to global competitors. time to donate time and money to their opposition. one month in and they've already proven themselves a failure.

He's only got one term. IMO better to cut the presumably unneeded limbs off than wait. Government, unlike people, can always grow a new limb if necessary.

There are also bills and other measures (not to mention his own words) trying to support the idea of a third term for Trump.

You can argue that these measures are not serious or not a real threat or things like that, but it would be inaccurate to say that the prevailing R view is that there is no possibility of term-limit shenanigans.

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

#322

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.

Harvard can pay for the indirect costs at issue with a fraction of the money its $53B endowment earns.

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

#323
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both parties actually target a bimodal IQ distribution. The D distribution covers most of the left tail and the upper-mid, and the R distribution covers the lower-mid and most of the right tail. You generally expect interleaved affiliation like this; it's just a question of how many bands there are. R avg is actually slightly higher, although that doesn't tell the full story. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…

I don't think it's a partisan question, although it'd be interesting to repeat the survey today given how the makeup of the Republican party has changed since 2014. Keep in mind Trump could not have won re-election with the support of Republican constituencies alone. You had to be genuinely gullible to vote for Trump this time, but that wasn't the case in 2016. I'm thinking of the blue-collar union members who voted…

> You had to be genuinely gullible to vote for Trump this time

It seems like he's mostly doing what his coalition was hoping he would do? Certainly to a greater degree than in 2016. I have not seen any credible indications of post-election regret from his coalition.

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

#324
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

47.9% of those who voted, not the total population. I am not a US citizen myself and I did not vote, for example.

It’s the most recent approval rating, sadly.

Understood. Honestly it makes sense. He promised his base something and he delivered in his first term, and he is going about it the same way this term. His base has good reasons to approve.

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

#325
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a partisan question, although it'd be interesting to repeat the survey today given how the makeup of the Republican party has changed since 2014. Keep in mind Trump could not have won re-election with the support of Republican constituencies alone. You had to be genuinely gullible to vote for Trump this time, but that wasn't the case in 2016. I'm thinking of the blue-collar union members who voted…

> You had to be genuinely gullible to vote for Trump this time It seems like he's mostly doing what his coalition was hoping he would do? Certainly to a greater degree than in 2016. I have not seen any credible indications of post-election regret from his coalition.

I have not seen any credible indications of post-election regret from his coalition.

They believed that things were bad and that Trump would make them better rather than worse. If that's not gullibility, I don't know what is.

His voters will ultimately be among his greatest victims... but he'll blame Biden for whatever goes wrong, and they'll lap it up like a dog with a dish of antifreeze, just like they always do.

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

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His polling is historically poor for a month into a president's term You can hate the guy all you like, but this is 100% false.

> > His polling is historically poor for a month into a president's term > You can hate the guy all you like, but this is 100% false. It's absolutely true. His second term started with the second lowest initial gross approval rating (47%) of a Presidential term back to 1953; the worst was his first term (at 45%). But his initial rating was also the worst net approval of any President (with 48% disapproval, for a net…

[deleted]

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

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ideology is being masqueraded science. That these individuals are abusing their scientific authority in such a flagrant way. Eliminating taxpayer-funded DEI programs is not "white supremacist ideology". And even if you believe it is, and that the SCOTUS — which ruled that DEI admission requirements at Ivy League universities discriminated against Asian applicants — is part of this white supremacist conspiracy, y…

> That ideology is being masqueraded science. It's a letter to the editor .. it's not being "masqueraded as science", it is openly declared as an opinion held by some scientists. Scientists are not homogenuous in opinion, there is a long history of differing opinions in letters to editors in science journals. Are you * ignorant of this, or * delibrately misframing it? > That these individuals are abusing their scient…

Publishing in Science — a premier scientific journal — carries significant weight. When STEM PhDs use this platform for political advocacy, it misleads the public into assuming scientific consensus on divisive issues. It undermines trust in science which is already facing a crisis in legitimacy.

The letter states: "As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leadership must take urgent action." This clearly implies a link between anti-DEI efforts and white supremacy. This is an inflammatory leap, and tying it to their PhDs, let alone to Science, disgraces the scientific establishment. And your claim that this doesn't refer to anti-DEI efforts is disingenuous. There is no other phenomenon at play that the alleged "recodification of white supremacy philosophies" could be referring to. The letter is a reaction to the anti-DEI program and is plainly implying that this program amounts to recodification of white supremacy philosophies.

They’re using their credentials as a bully pulpit to push a narrow ideological viewpoint. It’s dogmatic and unethical and the decision by Science to give this a platform further undermines the credibility of the scientific establishment.

Racial affinity groups promote segregation, clashing with the color-blind foundation of modern science. They are indefensible, and attempts to legitimize them by labeling critics as white supremacists are intellectually dishonest to a shameless extreme. Claiming that disallowing these racial-identity groups in taxpayer funded institutions amounts to promoting civil liberties violations by emboldening racists is just more totally baseless and inflammatory smear tactics to maintain programs that reject colorblindness and thereby promote racism.

While they keep conjuring up the racist right-wing boogeyman, actual codified racism — ruled on by the Supreme Court — pervades academia. Racial affinity groups, propped up by this broader racial privilege ideology, have fueled discrimination across academia, where applicants are judged heavily by race. Yet these ideologues have the gall to claim the real threat is to so-called disadvantaged groups. It’s a sham, and the evidence proves it.

You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it.

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

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That ideology is being masqueraded science. It's a letter to the editor .. it's not being "masqueraded as science", it is openly declared as an opinion held by some scientists. Scientists are not homogenuous in opinion, there is a long history of differing opinions in letters to editors in science journals. Are you * ignorant of this, or * delibrately misframing it? > That these individuals are abusing their scient…

Publishing in Science — a premier scientific journal — carries significant weight. When STEM PhDs use this platform for political advocacy, it misleads the public into assuming scientific consensus on divisive issues. It undermines trust in science which is already facing a crisis in legitimacy. The letter states: "As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leaders…

> You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it.

Nonsense. I have done no such thing. Please don't lie and misrepresent, that's simply dishonest.

You're overstating the importance of a letter to the editor that expresses an opinion.

So overstating that importance it's both comical and reflects poorly on yourself and your credibility in making any statements about science.

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

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishing in Science — a premier scientific journal — carries significant weight. When STEM PhDs use this platform for political advocacy, it misleads the public into assuming scientific consensus on divisive issues. It undermines trust in science which is already facing a crisis in legitimacy. The letter states: "As political parties in the US and beyond seek to recodify white supremacist philosophies, STEM leaders…

> You're defending atrocious behavior by people who are brandishing their scientific credentials to legitimize it. Nonsense. I have done no such thing. Please don't lie and misrepresent, that's simply dishonest. You're overstating the importance of a letter to the editor that expresses an opinion. So overstating that importance it's both comical and reflects poorly on yourself and your credibility in making any state…

You’re defending these scientists’ choice to cloak radical ideological stances in their scientific authority, and Science’s decision to broadcast those stances, lending them unearned legitimacy. You’re excusing the letter authors by insisting they don’t equate anti-DEI directives with white supremacy. But instead of calling them out for viciously and dishonestly branding those directives as a 'recodification of white supremacist philosophies', you’re criticizing me for objecting to this sham being paraded as science

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

#330
post #169

There's a lot that can be said about this like how we got here, what's really going on and what we do about it but honestly, it's all pretty pointless. Nothing is going to change. We had 60 years of near-total Democratic control of Congress until, in the 1990s, the Democrats abandoned New Deal policies in favor of neoliberalism. Even this was a culmination of what began decades earlier, specifically that real wages s…

Do you think Trump wants to copy China? He is emulating Russia, where the oligarchs rule over the plebs and the Tsar rules over them all. Meanwhile, most homes lack plumbing, but the Capital is first rate.
Post reply on HN