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

The Gutting of America's Medical Research

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#61

Post by 1970-01-01 »

biophysboy wrote: post #42
1970-01-01 wrote: post #7

Once again, there is merit to cutting funding when more than half of research is irreproducible crap. A decimation can function as the first step toward rebuilding. The problem is that you DO need to have plans to rebuild it. We don't.

Why do you think reproducibility will improve if funding is cut significantly? That is less money for labor, instruments, and consumables, which means less money for experiments, particularly for follow up experiments that have no deliverable.

I agree that cutting it won't solve the issue, especially without that long term plan, but at the current sky-high level of fraud, this just isn't science anymore. At what level of fraud do you suggest pulling the plug if not right now? Funding research until 90% is fake? 95%? 99%? Taxpayer money can be spent on many other life-critical areas with tangible results.

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#62

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

mystraline wrote: post #34
bediger4000 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be follow-on effects, too. Like "wellness" ending up on the same tier as "medicine". Without the research, who's to say? This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron).

> This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron). That's very double-edged. The open question is should humans have the right to take substances individually? Sure, you get Ivermectin/covid deniers. But you also get hom…

Combatting medical Dunning-Kruger should be within the scope of public health.

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#63

Post by biophysboy »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #37
aeblyve wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In part because the expiry of patents puts a cap on the return on investment private research can get you. Patents last for about 25 years, but important innovations have returns far into the future, hundreds of years. At that rate, you would very often be better off accumulating interest on capital anyways. Notwithstanding the nature of scientific progress as an accumulation of smaller experiences (each individually…

Even ignoring the limits of patents, how much of this research "pays off"? Do 1% of research grants go towards something tangibly useful, or is it closer to 0.1%?

The timeline from preclinical work to a new drug application has a ~5% success rate. A major bottleneck in this is target selection, which research should in principle help with. Giving a number for how much science improves this is iffy, because a lot of research is in fact pointless, with tiny specks of gold. Overall, when comparing money spent vs. its effects (ROI, economic spillover, cost-savings, etc), its definitely worth it.

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#64

Post by carefulfungi »

gotoeleven wrote: post #16

[flagged]

Here is the data. Your comment is misleading - HIV, Alzheimers, diabetes, and improved anti-viral and vaccines (all of which are research areas impacted by these cuts) aren't leftist idealogies.

https://taggs.hhs.gov/Content/Data/HHS_Grants_Terminated.pdf

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#65

Post by bediger4000 »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #62
mystraline wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron). That's very double-edged. The open question is should humans have the right to take substances individually? Sure, you get Ivermectin/covid deniers. But you also get hom…

Combatting medical Dunning-Kruger should be within the scope of public health.

We as a society spent the last 3-4 years kneecapping public health laws and authorities. There have been numerous state level rollbacks of authority, did that public health officials don't have the authority to impose mask mandates, or advise social distancing.

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#66

Post by bediger4000 »

Spivak wrote: post #46
mystraline wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron). That's very double-edged. The open question is should humans have the right to take substances individually? Sure, you get Ivermectin/covid deniers. But you also get hom…

I go further and say that you should be able to buy any drug from the pharmacy without a prescription*. As well as testing kits. Having to have an ongoing relationship with a doctor just to refill your medication or get antibiotics when you get strep is a huge waste of everyone's time and money. And there are countries where you can already do this and they haven't collapsed. It makes the job of pharmacist actually m…

If use of a drug had no, or very little externalities, id agree. Overuse of antibiotics creates resistant bacteria, endangering everyone. I am forced to disagree civilly, sir.

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#67

Post by MandieD »

Spivak wrote: post #46
mystraline wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron). That's very double-edged. The open question is should humans have the right to take substances individually? Sure, you get Ivermectin/covid deniers. But you also get hom…

I go further and say that you should be able to buy any drug from the pharmacy without a prescription*. As well as testing kits. Having to have an ongoing relationship with a doctor just to refill your medication or get antibiotics when you get strep is a huge waste of everyone's time and money. And there are countries where you can already do this and they haven't collapsed. It makes the job of pharmacist actually m…

Two words that explain why it hurts everyone else when you can go buy antibiotics whenever you want (you think you have strep):

Antibiotic Resistance.

Longer explanation: how do you know exactly which bacteria you’re infected with, and which antibiotics will work well against them, and which ones they’ll throw a middle finger at? Even if you have the exact same symptoms as the last time, how do you know that taking the same antibiotic will work just as well, and won’t just further select for bacteria it has no effect on?

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#68

Post by mystraline »

sorokod wrote: post #45
mystraline wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron). That's very double-edged. The open question is should humans have the right to take substances individually? Sure, you get Ivermectin/covid deniers. But you also get hom…

> But why shouldn't I be able to treat myself? Consider this analogy: you should be allowed to put a gun to your own head and pull the trigger. You should not be allowed to put on a suicide vest and blow yourself up in a group of people.

To the first, yes, I do believe that we humans SHOULD have a right to commit suicide. It should be a right to end your own life.

We have a 'right' drink a handle of whiskey a day, up to the point we get liver disease. Same with smoking 3 packs a day of cigarettes. Same with horrendous diet. But those ways of killing yourself are "acceptable" and also legal. But they're slower.

The second, you're harming other people. That example is blatantly ridiculous, and appears just to gain an emotional response by invoking terrorism.

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#69

Post by YossarianFrPrez »

> It also axed research on Covid-19, including studies that could have helped the nation respond to many infectious disease threats. Among them: a grant to Emory University and Georgia State University, where researchers had developed three potential drugs that showed promise against many RNA-based viruses, including coronaviruses, Ebola, avian influenza and measles, said George Painter, a pharmacologist at Emory who was co-leading the research.

Just to reiterate a few things, while estimates vary, every $1 spent on medical research returns multiple dollars of economic value. One study out of England suggest that for ever pound invested in medical research, the return is .25 pounds every year after, forever. [1] The cost of these cuts, as others have said, is quite large.

In addition, these grants are peer reviewed by expert panels, and only grants that score within certain top N percentiles which are determined each year. For the marquee grants, you have to score in the top ~10th percentile (see [2], for example.) This scoring is done by expert panels, which are composed of leading experts / professors from around the country. While one can adjust funding priorities, part of the price to pay for having cutting edge basic research always available is that there will be certain things one disagrees with.

There is plenty of room for a discussion of how to increase the efficiency of scientific funding, and if the current science-funding institutions are at... 'a near-optimal position in tradeoff space.' However, taking a chainsaw to the agencies to punish them is like blaming doctors for outbreaks of diseases, the latter being sadly predictable.

[1] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/health-research-offers-a-big-retu...

[2] https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/niaid-paylines

Re: The Gutting of America's Medical Research

#70

Post by Vilian »

mystraline wrote: post #34
bediger4000 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will be follow-on effects, too. Like "wellness" ending up on the same tier as "medicine". Without the research, who's to say? This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron).

> This will also compound the Qanon fascination with "medical freedom", where the patient gets to dictate to the doctor what to do (i.e. use ivermectin against COVID, or whatever other superstition rises to the top of the Qanon imagination cauldron). That's very double-edged. The open question is should humans have the right to take substances individually? Sure, you get Ivermectin/covid deniers. But you also get hom…

>I can make it for $300 for the 12 week course, and it retail costs $84000

A problem that only exist in USA, you could follow literally any other country and you wouldn't get the same problem, and no other country avoided that issue but letting dumb people take dumb things that they heard in the internet

Post reply on HN