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

U.S. science is in chaos

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#941

Post by ryanmcbride »

drak0n1c wrote: post #352
dwa3592 wrote: post #307

My wife operates an optical trap (a sophisticated microscope, she uses it for studying gene/dna physical properties) and she's pretty good at working with that instrument. The number of people good at working that microscope are in the ballpark of 2000 (+- 1000) in the world! She has cried a lot in the last one year for the mess science research has become. We are moving out of the country at the end of August.

There are many biotech startups and private research labs thriving and paying high salaries with excellent benefits for that specialty right now - focused on genetic testing, editing, and longevity. Before moving abroad, widening the search outside of academia and considering moving internally might be worthwhile.

I'm sorry but this is so naive

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#942

Post by Windchaser »

nikanj wrote: post #626
NeutralCrane wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent nearly a decade disgusted with Trump but being contrarian by insisting that it was understandable why voters might support it, even if I felt they were wrong. At this point, there’s no defending it. Anyone who supports this incarnation of the Republican Party is as stupid and backwards as they’ve been castigated.

But they should still give you money to run your studies?

Well, yes, they should be not-backwards.

If you cut funding for helpful science on the basis of ignorant claims, you're acting backwards. If you act backwards, you may get called backwards.

You should still change, become not-backwards, and fund science.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#943

Post by preg_match »

littlekey wrote: post #423
twothreeone wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which really tells you more about the state of mind of people asking that question. What kind of person isn't curious about the puzzle of their own existence, or the nature of the physical reality they live in (and yes, by "being curious" I mean "being willing to put a tax dollar amount to them")?

>What kind of person isn't curious about the puzzle of their own existence A person who struggles to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, for one.

I thought we all learned our lesson from DOGE. These savings don’t go to you, bubba. There is no check.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#944

Post by Windchaser »

runako wrote: post #845
wins32767 wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like this from the article: > When Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDKD), first got to the NIH 12 years ago, she wanted to increase research into the social determinants of health—structural racism in home-loan practices meant that nonwhite people got iced out of home ownership and generational wealth, which forced them to live in neighborhoo…

Agree that asking for grants requires compromises. However, this administration has made clear that there are no compromises to be had for projects that seek forbidden knowledge. Climate, for example, is not a subject that is permitted at all. It's not about how one asks, it's that we do not want to know the output of the research.

Alternatively, they've already decided that everyone who works in the field is biased, or close enough, that it's better to just burn it all down.

And, yes, this overlooks the times when conservative scientists like Richard Muller have come in to disprove the mainstream consensus and then come up with the exact same results, but... that's not considered important when they have so many other "examples" of "liberal science".

I know that ultimately, there isn't really any space for 'conservative science' in climate. Either they do bad science, so it's not really 'science', or they do good science and come up with the same 'liberal' answers. But I don't think conservatives have figured this out yet; they're still convinced that good science will prove them right.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#945

Post by preg_match »

wins32767 wrote: post #451
khalic wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, are you implying science is dying because, you believe, less and less scientists are “conservative”. Do you have any notion of how ridiculous that sounds?

I'm not implying I'm stating that if you depending on the tax base of the entire country to pay your bills you need to ensure that you cultivate the support of both parties.

But one of the parties is explicitly anti-science. Are you seeing the problem?

The reason there’s no conservatives in science, or startlingly little conservatives in education as a whole, is because they’re incompatible ideologies. It’s like asking why there aren’t more polar bears in the rain forest.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#946

Post by Windchaser »

wins32767 wrote: post #451
khalic wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, are you implying science is dying because, you believe, less and less scientists are “conservative”. Do you have any notion of how ridiculous that sounds?

I'm not implying I'm stating that if you depending on the tax base of the entire country to pay your bills you need to ensure that you cultivate the support of both parties.

> you need to ensure that you cultivate the support of both parties

I'm not sure that that's possible. If someone is motivated by religion or finance to believe something that's simply not true, and your scientific evidence contradicts them, there's a fundamental misalignment. They won't support you, because the real-world evidence contradicts their beliefs, and you're bringing more real-world evidence.

On issues of climate change, evolution, age of the universe, etc., the hard science just straight up disagrees with conservatives. I don't see a way around that.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#947

Post by dostick »

dwa3592 wrote: post #307

My wife operates an optical trap (a sophisticated microscope, she uses it for studying gene/dna physical properties) and she's pretty good at working with that instrument. The number of people good at working that microscope are in the ballpark of 2000 (+- 1000) in the world! She has cried a lot in the last one year for the mess science research has become. We are moving out of the country at the end of August.

So you are saying that American dream became an optical trap?

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#948

Post by lbrito »

asdff wrote: post #860
lbrito wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is really expensive in Spain and Portugal right now. I live in BC and mid/small cities there are actually more expensive than here

https://old.reddit.com/r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer/comments/1thk1bn... Cheaper than 120k?

Sure, you can find something with various budgets. As other said, that house is far away from the city centre (the reddit OP says so in the thread). You'll also probably need to spend a lot on upkeep and retrofits with buildings this old.

Something in the city centre is more like 4800 euro/sqmt (https://www.idealista.com/sala-de-prensa/informes-precio-viv...).

Just browse idealista in the city you want and you'll see its not such a bargain as people might think. Mid-sized cities I've checked (Vigo, Valencia, Granada) all have similar prices, around 400k for a 2-3 bed older apartment, or twice as much for a newer one.

Re: U.S. science is in chaos

#949

Post by xhkkffbf »

larkost wrote: post #689
xhkkffbf wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Citation needed. DEI statements are not about quotas. Anyone who was using them as quotas was acting illegally. But so far there has been no attempts at showing that that was the case anywhere (only people spouting off, like Charlie Kirks's statement about a theoretical black pilot).

Not about quotas? It's pretty well-known that the DEI committees don't review the statements blindly and somehow manage to choose people with the skin color they want.

For instance, in the past Berkeley's DEI committee let only 13.6% of the white people onto the short list for Bio professorships in one application cycle. And said that this was a "positive change". So, yes, we know about this because the people in the DEI committee wanted to brag about it.

This report is gone from the web now, but here's an archive link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20221006090551/https://ofew.berk...

Post reply on HN