I'm surprised by the reactionary tone from a journal like Nature. I would have much rather liked an appeal to the public showing data and analysis of what all of that science funding has accomplished for the people paying for it. Every American currently has well over $100,000 in government debt, and I think they want to get their money's worth.
I guess I'm a little biased - I used to run programs of scientists funded by government grants, and in my experience, they really excelled at pontificating and defending their territory.
My friends in academia often complain of the politics and inefficiency at colleges - they imply that science has become a leisure activity for kids of the wealthy. Being a scientist has jumped toward the top of the status tracks, and it has attracted types of people that seek out those tracks.
rbanffy•9mo ago
> Every American currently has well over $100,000 in government debt
Spoiler: it won't be by gutting research Americans will recover that money.
> science has become a leisure activity for kids of the wealthy
Taxing the wealthy is a much better option.
They ask "what has scientific research ever done for the American?". Well...
"Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system..."
The military, for instance, are fond of their weapons and all that came out of government funded research. You might say, for instance, Northrop, not the government, built the B-2 bomber, and you'd be somewhat right, but only the US government buys B-2's and, therefore, it is fully funded by the government.
Also, each and every ICBM and nuke on them came out of scientific research. A WHOLE LOT OF IT.
The internet we know and love today started as ARPANET.
> I would have much rather liked an appeal to the public showing data and analysis of what all of that science funding has accomplished for the people paying for it.
Literally from the article:
As one measure of its impact, the NIH supplied funding that contributed to more than 99% of drugs approved in the United States from 2010 to 2019
afpx•9mo ago
I guess I'm a little biased - I used to run programs of scientists funded by government grants, and in my experience, they really excelled at pontificating and defending their territory.
My friends in academia often complain of the politics and inefficiency at colleges - they imply that science has become a leisure activity for kids of the wealthy. Being a scientist has jumped toward the top of the status tracks, and it has attracted types of people that seek out those tracks.
rbanffy•9mo ago
Spoiler: it won't be by gutting research Americans will recover that money.
> science has become a leisure activity for kids of the wealthy
Taxing the wealthy is a much better option.
They ask "what has scientific research ever done for the American?". Well...
"Apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system..."
The military, for instance, are fond of their weapons and all that came out of government funded research. You might say, for instance, Northrop, not the government, built the B-2 bomber, and you'd be somewhat right, but only the US government buys B-2's and, therefore, it is fully funded by the government.
Also, each and every ICBM and nuke on them came out of scientific research. A WHOLE LOT OF IT.
The internet we know and love today started as ARPANET.
Microwaves.
Teflon.
MRI machines (and CAT machines before them).
gapan•9mo ago
https://youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ
crackedbassoon•9mo ago
Literally from the article:
As one measure of its impact, the NIH supplied funding that contributed to more than 99% of drugs approved in the United States from 2010 to 2019