The Continuing Crisis, Part IX: Inside the NIH Now(science.org)
science.org
The Continuing Crisis, Part IX: Inside the NIH Now
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/continuing-crisis-part-ix-inside-nih-now
147 comments
Honestly it's odd and out-of-touch to be motivated by being "competitive with China". Who cares? If you are a normal US resident, you care about improving the lives of you and your community, not competing against some far-away nebulous group of people whom you have never met and will never interact with. All while big brother is telling you that those far-away strangers are somehow your enemies. It makes sense as a rhetorical way to motivate action, but it's rather simple, short-sighted, manipulative, and divorced from reality for 99% of people.
I also reject the notion that progress is a zero-sum game, that we have to "compete" at all, that there needs to be a winner and a loser here. We could just as well work with others to improve the lives of us and our communities. Why isn't the notion "cooperate with China to uplift all"? Perhaps releasing your models under a MIT license is actually the right move here that is in everyone's best interest, perhaps the US should be following their lead?
I also reject the notion that progress is a zero-sum game, that we have to "compete" at all, that there needs to be a winner and a loser here. We could just as well work with others to improve the lives of us and our communities. Why isn't the notion "cooperate with China to uplift all"? Perhaps releasing your models under a MIT license is actually the right move here that is in everyone's best interest, perhaps the US should be following their lead?
How does the "competition is good" crowd around here come to the conclusion that spurring a competitive mindset is wrong when it comes to international affairs?
Is it a slippery slope argument with apocalypse war at the end of it? Or something else?
Is it a slippery slope argument with apocalypse war at the end of it? Or something else?
Sounds good, but in the end possession of sovereign territory is a zero-sum game. Perhaps you could convince the Chinese Communist Party to stop trying to seize it from our allies? Because allowing China to dominate the Indo-Pacific Region certainly won't benefit normal US residents in the long run.
You've shifted the goalposts dramatically from economic cooperation, but my point is that your "allies" and your "enemies" are genuinely not your allies or your enemies in any real sense, nor are they for the vast majority of US residents. They are shifting designations fed to you by powerful people. But if you want to talk about respect for territorial self-determination, wait until you hear about the US and its disregard for the sovereignty of El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Cuba, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran, Egypt, Korea, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine, Hungary. And more recently, Greenland, Panama, Mexico, Canada. The US and its residents don't have a leg to stand on here.
Nonsense. Economic cooperation simply cannot exist when there is a conflict over sovereign territory. As a US citizen I claim no moral high ground but our interests don't align with China's. That is the reality regardless of your paranoid fantasies about powerful people.
It's really not hard to understand, just look at how US approval ratings of Ukraine have dropped dramatically in the last 3 months. Shifting designations led by powerful people.
Much too quiet here on HN on this post
Science underpins technology, people.
If you want to see the US rapidly lose its place in the tech world over the next decade, this is a great way to go about it.
Science underpins technology, people.
If you want to see the US rapidly lose its place in the tech world over the next decade, this is a great way to go about it.
Yes of course.
The problem is what can be done? The usual arrangement of letter writing or donating and voting is just more of the same cycle.
I'm not by any means in favor of what's going on, but some steam has to be let out of the system. And the real problem is trust in our institutions. What can be done about that?
The problem is what can be done? The usual arrangement of letter writing or donating and voting is just more of the same cycle.
I'm not by any means in favor of what's going on, but some steam has to be let out of the system. And the real problem is trust in our institutions. What can be done about that?
My thoughts exactly. I certainly have throes of people on Facebook complaining about this, but what shall I, the individual, do about this?
I have my causes to which I devote great time and personal effort, but if I stopped my life for every minor disaster I would spend my life shaking my fist at my computer.
I quite like my life and I don’t intend to spend it getting rage baited by never-ending news cycles.
Give me an action to take, not an emotion to feel.
I have my causes to which I devote great time and personal effort, but if I stopped my life for every minor disaster I would spend my life shaking my fist at my computer.
I quite like my life and I don’t intend to spend it getting rage baited by never-ending news cycles.
Give me an action to take, not an emotion to feel.
How old are you? What is happening now at the NSF and NIH will knock the US off its technological perch in less than 15 to 20 years. We are already fighting to maintain an edge as it is.
What this means to you personally and other tech workers is that many of the well-paying tech jobs will be going elsewhere.
What this means to you personally and other tech workers is that many of the well-paying tech jobs will be going elsewhere.
At this point I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It would be kind of great to be able to get a decent job somewhere that isn't a dystopia.
It's not a bad thing...for those other countries. As an American you're not going to be able to get those jobs. You think a Chinese company is going to want to hire a remote American worker, who is 10 time zones away, doesn't speak the language, doesn't know the culture, and who wants to work only 40 hours a week? Maybe not even if you're willing to work for $20/hour.
Why would there be decent jobs? And what makes you think there wont be only more dystopia if this descent isn’t arrested?
Like, it can ALWAYS be worse.
Like, it can ALWAYS be worse.
Whatever buddy.
[deleted]
I'm nearly 50 and have watched politics swing back and forth all my life.
That's not what is currently happening. It's not a minor disaster. It's something we'll take generations to recover from, if ever.
We can't do much, individually. Find people in your community working on stuff you care about and get out there and pitch in. Get involved. Make sure your local school district isn't banning books or being cruel to trans kids. Make sure you have good city councilors.
A friend of mine made this in the area where I live: https://deschutesgrassroots.com/
That's not what is currently happening. It's not a minor disaster. It's something we'll take generations to recover from, if ever.
We can't do much, individually. Find people in your community working on stuff you care about and get out there and pitch in. Get involved. Make sure your local school district isn't banning books or being cruel to trans kids. Make sure you have good city councilors.
A friend of mine made this in the area where I live: https://deschutesgrassroots.com/
Call and write your Congresspeople.
Picket a Tesla dealer.
Get vaccinated.
In addition i'd also suggest looking at deep roots of why half the country is cheering it up. They don't want their country to go down the drain. Then why? It was pretty illustrative how MAGA was cheering the stopping of condoms money to Kenya in the Trump's speech. It looked like a caricature example of the government waste. Well, condoms there is one of the most effective ways to slow down HIV spreading. I'd bet MAGA wouldn't want more people there to get HIV. I'd bet MAGA just didn't know it. To me the "[not]know" is the root keyword in all that destruction happening now.
You cannot win an information war, when you dont know you are part of it.
Then you can’t win an information war, when it’s free speech, and counter speech is too complicated.
On the other hand - you sure as hell can convert the blitz into trench warfare, and gum up the war machine.
Then you can’t win an information war, when it’s free speech, and counter speech is too complicated.
On the other hand - you sure as hell can convert the blitz into trench warfare, and gum up the war machine.
> I'd bet MAGA wouldn't want more people there to get HIV
That is incredibly charitable. Kudos, I guess, but not at all in line with what I’ve seen.
That is incredibly charitable. Kudos, I guess, but not at all in line with what I’ve seen.
If it were free, I guarantee every single maga republican I know would be ok with it.
It's an issue of tradeoffs, and the tradeoffs were never clearly articulated even to me the most staunch supporter of foreign aid. We've just accepted it and all such programs because we can see, because we trust, that the analysis was done and is valid.
Government does not currently have that level of trust with half the country, and worse has active distrust.
It's an issue of tradeoffs, and the tradeoffs were never clearly articulated even to me the most staunch supporter of foreign aid. We've just accepted it and all such programs because we can see, because we trust, that the analysis was done and is valid.
Government does not currently have that level of trust with half the country, and worse has active distrust.
At this point, I'm not sure it matters that much. You can't convince people who want to be ignorant.
I think you drastically underestimate people's hatred. MAGA do indeed want for more people in Kenya to get AIDS.
You can't be serious, right? How does someone come to believe nonsense like this?
[deleted]
I think it’s less that they “WANT” more people to get HIV but instead they do know that doing this type of thing will cause more cases and they’re fine with it because “gods will” and a bigger plan and all that.
Even this is completely uncharitable. Every maga republican I know is just concerned with poorly articulated cost/benefits of such programs.
We the liberal elite grew up with institutions making these kinds of decisions and we trust it to a certain extent.
There's a trust gap. Even the staunchest republican I know will gladly volunteer to help their local community for the most part. That's their priority.
We the liberal elite grew up with institutions making these kinds of decisions and we trust it to a certain extent.
There's a trust gap. Even the staunchest republican I know will gladly volunteer to help their local community for the most part. That's their priority.
Why couldn't it be as simple as not wanting your taxes spent overseas when you're own communities are struggling?
It's hard to understand your adversary when you have so much contempt for them.
It's hard to understand your adversary when you have so much contempt for them.
[deleted]
The institutions have lost trust by sneaking political decisions through under the guise of science. Science can tell you what will happen if you make a certain decision, but it can't tell you what decision to make because that is a fundamentally non scientific question. They can regain trust by acting in a trustworthy manner.
Yeah I agree with this. If these tradeoffs were articulated and then everyone was allowed to personally buy "foreign aid bonds" then people could put their money to work in what mattered to them.
Instead the whole country funds programs that half of them don't trust, regardless of who is in charge.
Instead the whole country funds programs that half of them don't trust, regardless of who is in charge.
Chain yourself to a Tesla dealership. I'm serious. Getting Elon Musk to cry about how unfair he's being treated on TV amidst the damage he's doing will do more to hasten his departure than any letter or check you can write.
Mass protests and non-violent civil disobedience. I hope that we don't reach a point where going beyond that is required.
I've noticed on HN that any post involving less wholesome takes on the US admin and/or doge leadership become brigaded quite heavily with more lower quality discourse than the normal fare.
It's a really interesting phenomenon. And I'm kind of surprised the community allows it.
It's a really interesting phenomenon. And I'm kind of surprised the community allows it.
TBH, politics is and should be taken elsewhere because it is much more important than most of what we discuss here and therefore could easily crowd out everything else.
But there's a strong intersection between STEM, policy, and downstream innovation/employment - not to mention any ethical dilemmas along the way.
Not discussing and/or allowing bots to overrun any such discussion and drown out dissent has never in the history of man left to immediately better times in STEM.
Not discussing and/or allowing bots to overrun any such discussion and drown out dissent has never in the history of man left to immediately better times in STEM.
I'm not sure what the right answer is: if HN were to change its policy and focus on the authoritarian assault on the US in all its forms, it would easily crowd out everything else, and draw in a bunch of people interested in only politics.
It's sure hard to ignore. IDK, maybe some enterprising person should start a "hackers for democracy" web site where we can share ideas or something.
It's sure hard to ignore. IDK, maybe some enterprising person should start a "hackers for democracy" web site where we can share ideas or something.
> draw in a bunch of people interested in only politics.
This is already happening. I'm finding myself visiting the site less and less and enjoying my time here less and less because every single thread is getting hijacked by people who just want to talk politics.
That I largely agree with the general mood is exactly the problem: I don't need HN to work me up into even greater despair, I come here to engage my mind on useful things and talk about complex ideas with interesting people. But the interesting people are increasingly retreating from the nonstop anger cycle that's been feeding this site's engagement this year.
This is already happening. I'm finding myself visiting the site less and less and enjoying my time here less and less because every single thread is getting hijacked by people who just want to talk politics.
That I largely agree with the general mood is exactly the problem: I don't need HN to work me up into even greater despair, I come here to engage my mind on useful things and talk about complex ideas with interesting people. But the interesting people are increasingly retreating from the nonstop anger cycle that's been feeding this site's engagement this year.
Might I suggest this is a reflection of society as a whole? Politics is everywhere because nowhere is safe from politics, especially science these days.
We can't talk about science anymore because all the people working on it are worried about their jobs and lives instead of... well... doing science.
I appreciate wanting to come on HN and read about all the cool science-related articles without being troubled by politics too much. That stuff is weighty. It's nice to to just chill out and learn about cool things.
But we can't have those nice things anymore. Because faculty meetings are now spent talking about which words researchers have to avoid in our proposals because we don't want to be rejected by the government censors.
We used to talk about the cool things we would do for our students and our research plans. But now we are more worried about if we're even going to have jobs in 12 months. We are worried about our already-allocated funds being pulled.
We aren't talking about science anymore, because we have to talk about how to avoid being the next "transgender mice". We are dodging death threats if we trend on social media. We are losing our jobs. We are being detained at airports and denied entry to the US for holding anti Trump views. We are being deported from the country.
So I think your read on the situation is off; the interesting people are not retreating from nonstop anger cycles, they are under attack and not engaging in their typical behavior you find interesting. Instead of disengaging entirely, they need your support, so they can get back to doing cool things you find interesting.
We can't talk about science anymore because all the people working on it are worried about their jobs and lives instead of... well... doing science.
I appreciate wanting to come on HN and read about all the cool science-related articles without being troubled by politics too much. That stuff is weighty. It's nice to to just chill out and learn about cool things.
But we can't have those nice things anymore. Because faculty meetings are now spent talking about which words researchers have to avoid in our proposals because we don't want to be rejected by the government censors.
We used to talk about the cool things we would do for our students and our research plans. But now we are more worried about if we're even going to have jobs in 12 months. We are worried about our already-allocated funds being pulled.
We aren't talking about science anymore, because we have to talk about how to avoid being the next "transgender mice". We are dodging death threats if we trend on social media. We are losing our jobs. We are being detained at airports and denied entry to the US for holding anti Trump views. We are being deported from the country.
So I think your read on the situation is off; the interesting people are not retreating from nonstop anger cycles, they are under attack and not engaging in their typical behavior you find interesting. Instead of disengaging entirely, they need your support, so they can get back to doing cool things you find interesting.
I work in education. I'm in those meetings you're talking about that are wrestling with these topics. I also live in Trump country in the Midwest and am living here in large part specifically to be an ambassador to help in my own small way to reduce the hatred that's fueling the fires. I'm as in the thick of it as anyone here, but I still come here for a reprieve and as that reprieve disappears in favor of nonstop rage I need to retreat.
HN is dying, and it's not dying to Trump. It's dying to the undirected rage that has infused every subthread, and that is something that's within our control even if Trump and his actions aren't. It's not useful, it's just an emotional drain that serves to further exhaust those who are best positioned to help and further polarize an already dangerously polarized world.
HN is dying, and it's not dying to Trump. It's dying to the undirected rage that has infused every subthread, and that is something that's within our control even if Trump and his actions aren't. It's not useful, it's just an emotional drain that serves to further exhaust those who are best positioned to help and further polarize an already dangerously polarized world.
When communities are under attack, there really isn't a break though. Why do you think this rage exists? The fact it's here is not an indictment of HN and this community, it's an indication the rage has gotten out of control, and maybe we have to finally face it instead of seeking reprieve.
Facing it in this way isn't helping, it's just cementing the battle lines that were already in place and furthering the polarization and hatred which got Trump elected in the first place. We're not getting anywhere by spiraling into despair and anger—the kind of discussion that's been HN's staple recently is just serving to persuade people that democracy was doomed to fail after all because 50% of people are ignorant and hateful.
I disagree -- it's more important than ever to talk about these topics in the few communities, like HN, where people on both sides of the battle lines actually intermingle.
They don't intermingle any more. HN used to be a place for that kind of discussion, but it hasn't been that way in recent months. Perspectives that even sort of smell like they're right leaning get downvoted or flagged very quickly, leaving the discussion to be entirely a bunch of terrified left wingers resonating off each other, building their mutual fear and anger.
Something has shifted dramatically in the discourse the last two months, and HN isn't working the way it used to.
Something has shifted dramatically in the discourse the last two months, and HN isn't working the way it used to.
No. Lines being drawn is fine. It's fine to see the faces painted exactly as they are. The Left actually doesn't need to win back any voter from the Right. They just need to passionately show the faces of those on the Right, and the larger demographic of the Left will emerge.
When you see the corruption allowing, greedy tax obsessed Republican, when you see their true face, it's the greatest rallying call for a blowout midterms.
Just cut the tall grass to see the critters in the field.
When you see the corruption allowing, greedy tax obsessed Republican, when you see their true face, it's the greatest rallying call for a blowout midterms.
Just cut the tall grass to see the critters in the field.
[deleted]
I don't think removing the rule is the play. Could be nice to relax it Fridays or the weekend. TGIF rules.
If things go for much longer it'll be too late. In many ways it already is. Scientists I know are changing careers. Thinking of moving. Other countries are thinking about how they can take advantage of the brain drain. Even if things turn around today so much damage has been done already that it'll be felt for a long time.
The only hope we have is that Trump is a true circus ring master. He cancels the previous admin things and reinstates them with his name and a republican spin.
>If you want to see the US rapidly lose its place in the tech world over the next decade, this is a great way to go about it.
Too late, unless DOGE is stopped now and Trump is impeached, the US will lose its lead in tech and health (pharma) and many other industries. Pure and simple. Already the smartest of the smart are leaving the US for Europe and probably China.
If this is allowed to continue, in 6 months to a year, the US will be isolated and a third rate economy. All it will have is a first class war machine, which will not bode well for the world.
Too late, unless DOGE is stopped now and Trump is impeached, the US will lose its lead in tech and health (pharma) and many other industries. Pure and simple. Already the smartest of the smart are leaving the US for Europe and probably China.
If this is allowed to continue, in 6 months to a year, the US will be isolated and a third rate economy. All it will have is a first class war machine, which will not bode well for the world.
> All it will have is a first class war machine
And that won't last for much longer after losing those other sectors, either, as military dominance is a function of economic and technological superiority.
And that won't last for much longer after losing those other sectors, either, as military dominance is a function of economic and technological superiority.
> Much too quiet here on HN on this post
This whole topic has been done to death on HN, and this post doesn't contribute much that hasn't already been discussed extensively. Science underpins technology, but we've had 2-3 DOGE-related topics pinned to the front page at a time nonstop since the inauguration and the subject is bleeding incessantly into every other submission on the site.
Rest assured you'll have another 500+ comment rage fest in the near future, probably this week. This one just doesn't have enough going to feed the rage spiral—it's pretty blase compared to the dosage we've worked ourselves up to.
This whole topic has been done to death on HN, and this post doesn't contribute much that hasn't already been discussed extensively. Science underpins technology, but we've had 2-3 DOGE-related topics pinned to the front page at a time nonstop since the inauguration and the subject is bleeding incessantly into every other submission on the site.
Rest assured you'll have another 500+ comment rage fest in the near future, probably this week. This one just doesn't have enough going to feed the rage spiral—it's pretty blase compared to the dosage we've worked ourselves up to.
The post war scientific edifice is being shattered in a monumental act of vandalism.
It’s not just defunding childhood cancer research, but also dismantling the very idea of agency in the broader society. Science and basic research are worth pursuing. And the cost is a pittance.
It’s not just defunding childhood cancer research, but also dismantling the very idea of agency in the broader society. Science and basic research are worth pursuing. And the cost is a pittance.
The oligarchs can’t stand to see a single dollar go to a legit purpose though.
This reminds me of something Alan Kay (of Xerox PARC and Apple fame) wrote when talked about how those who profited from the results of research have not “paid it forward” through funding future research:
https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/
“As I pointed out in a previous email, Engelbart couldn't get funding from the very people who made fortunes from his inventions.
“It strikes me that many of the tech billionaires have already gotten their "upside" many times over from people like Engelbart and other researchers who were supported by ARPA, Parc, ONR, etc. Why would they insist on more upside, and that their money should be an "investment"? That isn't how the great inventions and fundamental technologies were created that eventually gave rise to the wealth that they tapped into after the fact.
“It would be really worth the while of people who do want to make money -- they think in terms of millions and billions -- to understand how the trillions -- those 3 and 4 extra zeros came about that they have tapped into. And to support that process.”
https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/
“As I pointed out in a previous email, Engelbart couldn't get funding from the very people who made fortunes from his inventions.
“It strikes me that many of the tech billionaires have already gotten their "upside" many times over from people like Engelbart and other researchers who were supported by ARPA, Parc, ONR, etc. Why would they insist on more upside, and that their money should be an "investment"? That isn't how the great inventions and fundamental technologies were created that eventually gave rise to the wealth that they tapped into after the fact.
“It would be really worth the while of people who do want to make money -- they think in terms of millions and billions -- to understand how the trillions -- those 3 and 4 extra zeros came about that they have tapped into. And to support that process.”
No, this isn't about oligarchs. This is about sadists some of whom happen to be oligarchs whose singular goal is to make the non-MAGA sad. It is working.
it is of course not about that, maga could give two shits who is happy or sad. the whole exercise is too do silly shit in public to make people “outraged” while privately commiting the greatest heist in the history of the universe :)
No, the oligarchs can't stand seeing a single dollar go to the poor, and when one is a billionaire, everyone else is poor.
What blows my mind is how short sighted it is. Even the oligarchs benefit from scientific research. Even the oligarchs lose money when our industries move to other countries.
How do we know what projects are worth funding? Anything that labels itself science? Is sociology science and basic research? Do we fund people instead of projects? How do you get in the group?
These grants are competitively reviewed by experts in their fields, and are quite hard to get. Even twenty years ago getting an NIH R01 was considered an important career accomplishment.
Now, as to the topics being funded, the broad strokes are set by Congress, which is why much of the funding goes to medical research since pretty much everyone likes the idea of better treatments for things like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. If there was an entire field they considered unnecessary, the legal process would be working with Congress to either remove it entirely or put in restrictions. They aren’t doing that, of course, because that would force people to actually go on the record voting for something specific and that usually exposes that “junk science” claims are deceptive.
Now, as to the topics being funded, the broad strokes are set by Congress, which is why much of the funding goes to medical research since pretty much everyone likes the idea of better treatments for things like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. If there was an entire field they considered unnecessary, the legal process would be working with Congress to either remove it entirely or put in restrictions. They aren’t doing that, of course, because that would force people to actually go on the record voting for something specific and that usually exposes that “junk science” claims are deceptive.
I can’t read between the lines you’re drawing. Are you trying to say that unless we can make perfectly efficient funding decisions, we should fund nothing?
The concern is that we are defunding important things because science is getting cut. But every university group associates itself with science.
Saying “we have to fund science” is a sentiment which is synonymous with saying “we have to fund good research projects that help society”.
Which important efforts are we losing? Or which are essential to keep?
Saying “we have to fund science” is a sentiment which is synonymous with saying “we have to fund good research projects that help society”.
Which important efforts are we losing? Or which are essential to keep?
Wait a few decades and you'll know.
If a research topic is obviously valuable, the industry is probably already working on it. Academic research mostly deals with topics where the benefits are too unpredictable or too far in the future to make sense for the industry. But many of those topics eventually become valuable – you just don't know in advance which ones.
If a research topic is obviously valuable, the industry is probably already working on it. Academic research mostly deals with topics where the benefits are too unpredictable or too far in the future to make sense for the industry. But many of those topics eventually become valuable – you just don't know in advance which ones.
I think you wait a few decades and you have thousands of people using their full brain power and attention to continue to secure that funding. And not just money - but a continuing affirmation that their work is valuable.
> you just don't know in advance which ones.
at the limit, this sounds like “you can’t question what’s good science because it’s unknowable, but it’s also a moral imperative to fund” which leads back to my original question. If that’s true, which projects and fields get to forgoe scrutiny in hopes of paying off?
> you just don't know in advance which ones.
at the limit, this sounds like “you can’t question what’s good science because it’s unknowable, but it’s also a moral imperative to fund” which leads back to my original question. If that’s true, which projects and fields get to forgoe scrutiny in hopes of paying off?
It's fundamentally no different from what VCs are doing, except the timescales are longer. You expect that most startups are going to fail but some are going to be really successful. Because you can't predict the outcomes in advance, you fund a large number of startups, hoping to catch the successful ones. There are some heuristics that should help you pick the winners. Or at least you hope so. But you also know there is a real chance that your intuition is wrong and the heuristics just make your choices worse.
VCs vet investments. A good opportunity is one that might make money. A bad investment is one that won’t,
Shouldn’t we be asking a similar question? Which research projects are going to deliver insight and value for the public?
That doesn’t mean every project needs to be perfect from the start, but it does mean a lot of what’s called science now is not included.
Shouldn’t we be asking a similar question? Which research projects are going to deliver insight and value for the public?
That doesn’t mean every project needs to be perfect from the start, but it does mean a lot of what’s called science now is not included.
> Shouldn’t we be asking a similar question? Which research projects are going to deliver insight and value for the public?
Yes, we’ve always done that - and quite extensively. I would recommend learning more about this process: it’s run by people who care deeply about scientific progress - nobody gets into it for the low pay - and if there seems to be a simple improvement, the odds are high that someone made it in the previous century.
I have a number of friends and family members who are academics and they spend a lot of time on each grant explaining how their research will advance our scientific understanding and linking it to other benefits (e.g. low-level neuroscience isn’t going to lead to new medical treatments directly but it provides the foundational knowledge which those treatments are based on).
Echoing the peer comment, if you were to pick any flaw it’s that we probably spend too much money on betting relative to the savings. There’s a lot of good research which doesn’t get funded, so it’s not hard to fill your budget every year with qualified proposals.
Yes, we’ve always done that - and quite extensively. I would recommend learning more about this process: it’s run by people who care deeply about scientific progress - nobody gets into it for the low pay - and if there seems to be a simple improvement, the odds are high that someone made it in the previous century.
I have a number of friends and family members who are academics and they spend a lot of time on each grant explaining how their research will advance our scientific understanding and linking it to other benefits (e.g. low-level neuroscience isn’t going to lead to new medical treatments directly but it provides the foundational knowledge which those treatments are based on).
Echoing the peer comment, if you were to pick any flaw it’s that we probably spend too much money on betting relative to the savings. There’s a lot of good research which doesn’t get funded, so it’s not hard to fill your budget every year with qualified proposals.
All of that can be true, and yet there are simultaneously so many papers and projects that are not worthwhile being funded. How does our university system exist in the current set? Where is the money coming from?
> they spend a lot of time on each grant explaining how their research will advance our scientific understanding and linking it to other benefits
Do those come true? Or is this just an exercise in diligence.
> I would recommend learning more about this process
You’re right. I should learn more. I really want to understand.
> they spend a lot of time on each grant explaining how their research will advance our scientific understanding and linking it to other benefits
Do those come true? Or is this just an exercise in diligence.
> I would recommend learning more about this process
You’re right. I should learn more. I really want to understand.
And there is plenty of vetting.
Writing a grant application typically takes weeks of full time work, split between the prospective PI, their collaborators and trainees, and administrators. When the funding agency receives the application, there is administrative vetting to ensure that the application meets all formal requirements. Then there is vetting by internal and external experts, who evaluate the application for both scientific merit and whatever other values politicians happen to prioritize at the moment. If it looks like that the grant will be awarded (typical success rates are 20-25%), there is further administrative vetting to ensure compliance with various regulations. And this entire process typically takes anything from a year to a year and a half.
If anything, the process is inefficient, because there is too much vetting. Especially considering how small the individual grants are.
Writing a grant application typically takes weeks of full time work, split between the prospective PI, their collaborators and trainees, and administrators. When the funding agency receives the application, there is administrative vetting to ensure that the application meets all formal requirements. Then there is vetting by internal and external experts, who evaluate the application for both scientific merit and whatever other values politicians happen to prioritize at the moment. If it looks like that the grant will be awarded (typical success rates are 20-25%), there is further administrative vetting to ensure compliance with various regulations. And this entire process typically takes anything from a year to a year and a half.
If anything, the process is inefficient, because there is too much vetting. Especially considering how small the individual grants are.
You’re telling me we know it’s quality because there are hoops to jump through to get the funding. But shouldn’t the results tell us that? Do we have a list of the most recent successes from these grants?
In your view, the government should’ve not funded the research that resulted in, say, the internet, because who could’ve known it would be valuable before it was done? Is that right?
Then there’s this weirdly pervasive (on the political right) attack on researchers that supposes they’re all just out for funding, damn the actual science. Is that a reflection of your values, projected on people you don’t know? Is it in actual, widespread evidence? Are you just begging the question for fun?
These are basically nonsensical objections that, I’m guessing, have no basis in reality as no evidence is given. There are a whole lot of listed studies available - it seems like it would be easy to find examples of things that shouldn’t be funded.
Then there’s this weirdly pervasive (on the political right) attack on researchers that supposes they’re all just out for funding, damn the actual science. Is that a reflection of your values, projected on people you don’t know? Is it in actual, widespread evidence? Are you just begging the question for fun?
These are basically nonsensical objections that, I’m guessing, have no basis in reality as no evidence is given. There are a whole lot of listed studies available - it seems like it would be easy to find examples of things that shouldn’t be funded.
> In your view, the government should’ve not funded the research that resulted in, say, the internet
No. I’m saying just because things had unforeseen value in the past does not mean we should not scrutinize which projects we fund.
In other words, having bad prospects for utility or success is not a virtue.
The limit of that argument is that anything and everything deserves funding because it might be useful even if its prospects look terrible.
> These are basically nonsensical objections
What’s nonsensical is to say funding science means good things happen, not funding science means bad things happen. What’s science? I don’t know. Everything from particle physics, to elementary school surveys.
No. I’m saying just because things had unforeseen value in the past does not mean we should not scrutinize which projects we fund.
In other words, having bad prospects for utility or success is not a virtue.
The limit of that argument is that anything and everything deserves funding because it might be useful even if its prospects look terrible.
> These are basically nonsensical objections
What’s nonsensical is to say funding science means good things happen, not funding science means bad things happen. What’s science? I don’t know. Everything from particle physics, to elementary school surveys.
> What’s nonsensical is to say funding science means good things happen, not funding science means bad things happen. What’s science? I don’t know. Everything from particle physics, to elementary school surveys.
I think, in aggregate, it’s trivially true that funding science results in good things happening. I think if there are specific studies that appear valueless, they could be assessed for future potential outcomes, wherein “we don’t know” is a viable and not unvaluable answer.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there’s value in oversight, they , and I, just disagree that not knowing, right now, the future outcomes isn’t really indicative of anything and is not a comment on the presence or absence of that future value.
I think, in aggregate, it’s trivially true that funding science results in good things happening. I think if there are specific studies that appear valueless, they could be assessed for future potential outcomes, wherein “we don’t know” is a viable and not unvaluable answer.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there’s value in oversight, they , and I, just disagree that not knowing, right now, the future outcomes isn’t really indicative of anything and is not a comment on the presence or absence of that future value.
> it’s trivially true that funding science results in good things happening
It’s trivially true in that you’ve defined science to mean “good and valuable research”.
Let’s make that more concrete. What qualifies as science and what’s not with funding. Is doing a survey about whether having the color red in a classroom helps student performance, science?
It’s trivially true in that you’ve defined science to mean “good and valuable research”.
Let’s make that more concrete. What qualifies as science and what’s not with funding. Is doing a survey about whether having the color red in a classroom helps student performance, science?
“Concern” may be the best single term for the downfall of civilization. It’s not that anyone’s doing anything wrong, it’s that there is concern that there could be someone doing something wrong, so best to hit the self destruct button.
> It’s not that anyone’s doing anything wrong,
I think plenty of things are being done wrong.
I think plenty of things are being done wrong.
We all do. But that’s not concern. Tell me something specific and I’ll agree or disagree. Tell me you are concerned in some abstract sense and I’ll accuse you of trying to get the outcome you want without presenting any reasonable argument.
But... why?
Why would anyone just destroy scientific research in their own country?
What do they hope to gain from this?
Why would anyone just destroy scientific research in their own country?
What do they hope to gain from this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
> The Great Leap Forward stemmed from multiple factors, including "the purge of intellectuals, the surge of less-educated radicals, the need to find new ways to generate domestic capital, rising enthusiasm about the potential results mass mobilization might produce
> The Great Leap Forward stemmed from multiple factors, including "the purge of intellectuals, the surge of less-educated radicals, the need to find new ways to generate domestic capital, rising enthusiasm about the potential results mass mobilization might produce
Yeah, I guess. Destroying the political "enemy" becomes more important than anything else.
I thought that only happened in socially backward, ideology-riddled, far-off places like Cambodia or China. Not advanced Western democracies.
I thought that only happened in socially backward, ideology-riddled, far-off places like Cambodia or China. Not advanced Western democracies.
"Socially backward" and "ideology riddled" describes the US pretty well.
And "far off" in the sense that American culture is intentionally isolationist and separatist, and Americans tend to be aggressively ignorant about the rest of the world.
Most Western democracies are more safe and have a higher standard of living and score better on the Human Freedom Index and other metrics than the US, and have "advanced" features like socialized healthcare and education, which the US does not, so one could argue the US isn't even advanced as Western democracies go. Having one's system of laws based on the vague and archaic prose of a Constitution written for an 18th century pre-industrial agrarian slaveowning society isn't very advanced as far as modern constitutional law is concerned.
And "far off" in the sense that American culture is intentionally isolationist and separatist, and Americans tend to be aggressively ignorant about the rest of the world.
Most Western democracies are more safe and have a higher standard of living and score better on the Human Freedom Index and other metrics than the US, and have "advanced" features like socialized healthcare and education, which the US does not, so one could argue the US isn't even advanced as Western democracies go. Having one's system of laws based on the vague and archaic prose of a Constitution written for an 18th century pre-industrial agrarian slaveowning society isn't very advanced as far as modern constitutional law is concerned.
> Most Western democracies are more safe and have a higher standard of living and score better on the Human Freedom Index
More safe I'll grant you.
As for higher standard of living, US salaries and purchasing power are higher than almost anywhere else, so I would need to see some citations to be persuaded.
How is the Human Freedom Index computed? Is Freedom of Speech included?
More safe I'll grant you.
As for higher standard of living, US salaries and purchasing power are higher than almost anywhere else, so I would need to see some citations to be persuaded.
How is the Human Freedom Index computed? Is Freedom of Speech included?
"purchasing power" and "standard of living" are two very different things.
For instance, Americans have plentiful access to cheap televisions, but an ambulance ride costs thousands of dollars, even with good insurance. This leads to a situation where people have the purchasing power to own multiple TVs, but at the same time forego lifesaving medical treatment because the cost of access is too high.
Is that a high standard of living, by your standards?
For instance, Americans have plentiful access to cheap televisions, but an ambulance ride costs thousands of dollars, even with good insurance. This leads to a situation where people have the purchasing power to own multiple TVs, but at the same time forego lifesaving medical treatment because the cost of access is too high.
Is that a high standard of living, by your standards?
It becomes a question of whether the much higher salaries outweigh the higher costs for ambulance rides.
The biggest categories of higher costs vs the rest of the world is education and health care. I’m sure someone has done the analysis of calculating purchasing power including those categories.
The biggest categories of higher costs vs the rest of the world is education and health care. I’m sure someone has done the analysis of calculating purchasing power including those categories.
That would be the Humans Development Index perhaps ? The US ranks around 20th, below a bunch of EU and SEA countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Yes, that certainly at least looks like a good attempt.
> better on the Human Freedom Index
Weird that all the metrics keep telling everyone their life is better, but people don’t feel that way. You can’t summarize the human experience of freedom in an index.
Weird that all the metrics keep telling everyone their life is better, but people don’t feel that way. You can’t summarize the human experience of freedom in an index.
I know, people felt like eggs were too expensive and brown people were getting too much of a free ride so they voted to burn the country down.
One might almost infer in this post-truth age of ours that vibes alone aren't sufficient to form an objective model of reality.
One might almost infer in this post-truth age of ours that vibes alone aren't sufficient to form an objective model of reality.
I know, people felt like eggs were too expensive and brown people were getting too much of a free ride so they voted to burn the country down.
The grand summary of America 2025. I don't think anyone has said it better than that in all of media. They gymnastics people run to avoid that simple truth just reveals their rotten core.
The grand summary of America 2025. I don't think anyone has said it better than that in all of media. They gymnastics people run to avoid that simple truth just reveals their rotten core.
"Egg prices" is part of the left's dismissal over the right's concerns about the economy in general. Using it as the basis of a serious argument hints you have no idea what the right is thinking.
Did you know these indices are invented by vibes of other people and are at best objective measurements of subjective values?
You're confusing "vibes" with "data."
If you disagree with the data, present data to the contrary. If you're just insisting that we believe your vibes over others, that would just make for boring conversation.
If you disagree with the data, present data to the contrary. If you're just insisting that we believe your vibes over others, that would just make for boring conversation.
You’re confusing data with meaning, understanding, and truth.
How many freedom units in the index am I experiencing right now? Will getting more units make me happier?
You can measure data without that data having a meaningful bearing on the topic you care about.
How many freedom units in the index am I experiencing right now? Will getting more units make me happier?
You can measure data without that data having a meaningful bearing on the topic you care about.
How people feel is inherently complex and hard to measure, but we should mind there is a self-selection aspect where people moving to/staying in the US probably tend to care less about some of the racial history or democratic process.
What matters as "freedom" will wildly vary from a US domestic point of view vs an international or EU point of view. "People don't feel that way" is I think on point, regardless of the state of the country.
In particular as those really uncomfortable with the situation give up and move away.
What matters as "freedom" will wildly vary from a US domestic point of view vs an international or EU point of view. "People don't feel that way" is I think on point, regardless of the state of the country.
In particular as those really uncomfortable with the situation give up and move away.
[deleted]
As a disclaimer, I don't know any country that is dealing with these kind of issues really well. Some don't have the struggle, but IMHO not just because of wise government and more thanks to historic or geographic position.
Destroying the political enemy has always been more important that anything else. Straight jailing "communists", jailing opposing minorities (crafting legal frameworks to do it or straight asking the army is to me the same), cutting funds from whole industries to help one's base and crush the other parties funds, taking money from enemy states to win domestic elections etc.
It's a matter of what you get flack for and what flies below the radar.
Developing countries have more visible incidents because their economy is more fragile and any political swing will have huge life and death ramifications. In contrast the US can afford waging trade wars without floods of people out in the streets.
Destroying the political enemy has always been more important that anything else. Straight jailing "communists", jailing opposing minorities (crafting legal frameworks to do it or straight asking the army is to me the same), cutting funds from whole industries to help one's base and crush the other parties funds, taking money from enemy states to win domestic elections etc.
It's a matter of what you get flack for and what flies below the radar.
Developing countries have more visible incidents because their economy is more fragile and any political swing will have huge life and death ramifications. In contrast the US can afford waging trade wars without floods of people out in the streets.
A thought occurred to me as I was reading your comment: what if this thinking that what we're witnessing couldn't happen in "advanced Western democracies" that are not "socially backward, ideology-riddled, [and] far-off" is one of the factors that helped us get to this situation?
All societies have "socially backward" and "ideology-riddled" aspects to them. American society has long struggled with racism, xenophobia, sexism, and anti-intellectualism, just to name a few of these ills. For example, the Eisenhower years that many people consider America's peak were also years where African Americans still had to endure Jim Crow, though to be fair this era was also the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, were many people fought to secure civil rights for all Americans regardless of ethnicity. McCarthyism and J. Edgar Hoover's abuse of authority were also happening under these times. Nixon had his infamous "enemies list." Police brutality and the violent suppression of non-violent protests have been an ongoing problem. Speaking as an American, our nation has been far from exemplary when it comes to not destroying political "enemies," from whistleblowers to protestors to entire ethnic groups.
Granted, the federal government has been able for much of its history to avoid fully caving to the desires of the "socially backward" and "ideology-riddled." Unfortunately, demagoguery is sometimes an effective strategy, and to be frank, our oligarchs and our politicians in general have done a poor job since the 1970s of building an environment where everyday Americans have an opportunity to improve their material lives. The past 30 years in particular have been a bonanza for asset holders, successful entrepreneurs, and other well-connected people, but it seems that life has become harder for the average low-income and middle-class American, especially as the prices of health care, higher education, and housing have gone up far faster than many Americans' ability to pay for these things. This has left behind many people, and many people feel like the "American dream" is dying or even dead. Unfortunately this hopelessness is a breeding ground for "socially backward" and "ideology-riddled" thoughts to take root, and the resulting field has become ripe for demagogues to pick.
We are now dealing with the results of this. Democracies are not immune to this; similar political movements in France and Germany have been picking up steam in recent years.
I don't know how we could reverse the tide in America right now, but I hope and pray that this does not spread to places like Canada, France, Germany, and other stable democracies. I think the key lies in having leadership, not just governmental but also in business and in other social institutions, be more caring about the societies they are established in. It's much harder for demagoguery to be effective when people feel secure and hopeful about their lot in life.
All societies have "socially backward" and "ideology-riddled" aspects to them. American society has long struggled with racism, xenophobia, sexism, and anti-intellectualism, just to name a few of these ills. For example, the Eisenhower years that many people consider America's peak were also years where African Americans still had to endure Jim Crow, though to be fair this era was also the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, were many people fought to secure civil rights for all Americans regardless of ethnicity. McCarthyism and J. Edgar Hoover's abuse of authority were also happening under these times. Nixon had his infamous "enemies list." Police brutality and the violent suppression of non-violent protests have been an ongoing problem. Speaking as an American, our nation has been far from exemplary when it comes to not destroying political "enemies," from whistleblowers to protestors to entire ethnic groups.
Granted, the federal government has been able for much of its history to avoid fully caving to the desires of the "socially backward" and "ideology-riddled." Unfortunately, demagoguery is sometimes an effective strategy, and to be frank, our oligarchs and our politicians in general have done a poor job since the 1970s of building an environment where everyday Americans have an opportunity to improve their material lives. The past 30 years in particular have been a bonanza for asset holders, successful entrepreneurs, and other well-connected people, but it seems that life has become harder for the average low-income and middle-class American, especially as the prices of health care, higher education, and housing have gone up far faster than many Americans' ability to pay for these things. This has left behind many people, and many people feel like the "American dream" is dying or even dead. Unfortunately this hopelessness is a breeding ground for "socially backward" and "ideology-riddled" thoughts to take root, and the resulting field has become ripe for demagogues to pick.
We are now dealing with the results of this. Democracies are not immune to this; similar political movements in France and Germany have been picking up steam in recent years.
I don't know how we could reverse the tide in America right now, but I hope and pray that this does not spread to places like Canada, France, Germany, and other stable democracies. I think the key lies in having leadership, not just governmental but also in business and in other social institutions, be more caring about the societies they are established in. It's much harder for demagoguery to be effective when people feel secure and hopeful about their lot in life.
Good thoughts :)
And yes, "that could never happen here" as one of the reasons why it could happen here is plausible. There's a complacency that means the grifters get away with more.
I'm aghast that the Germans are walking this road. Of all of us, they should understand this process better. Though, again, maybe there's that complacency that "it could not happen here again".
And yes, "that could never happen here" as one of the reasons why it could happen here is plausible. There's a complacency that means the grifters get away with more.
I'm aghast that the Germans are walking this road. Of all of us, they should understand this process better. Though, again, maybe there's that complacency that "it could not happen here again".
Bingo.
In MAGA land, educational institutions are coded as woke and DEI infested.
In MAGA land, educational institutions are coded as woke and DEI infested.
Because, many autocrats do this, a recent example is the Cultural Revolution in China. It took 50 years and a lot of hard work for China to recover from that.
Destroying the educational system allows these people to consolidate and maintain power.
Destroying the educational system allows these people to consolidate and maintain power.
1. It’s about the culture wars and also “evening the score” against opponents of Trump and MAGA. The Trump administration seems to be hellbent on “sticking it” to people, groups, institutions, and even nations that opposed him. Scientists and academics in general are on his hit list. There has always been an anti-intellectual bent on American society, but never have I seen it weaponized like this. Moreover, it’s unlikely that such policies will face blowback among Trump’s voting base. There are conservative scientists and academics whose careers have been upended by these moves, but they are a minority, and there aren’t enough of them to significantly erode the GOP’s electability.
2. It’s also about power and control. “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and Trump and his administration are reveling in their abilities to withhold federal dollars (paid for with the tax monies from all American taxpayers, Trump- and non-Trump voter alike) from targeted agencies and institutions unless they meet whatever diktats they demand.
It’s a scary time for science in America now. Science is already dealing with the “publish-or-perish” culture of academia, the fact that academics are pressured to raise recurrent streams of grant money in order to earn tenure, and the fact that industrial labs are increasingly driven by short-term business pursuits instead of longer-term, more speculative projects. These disruptive freezes of NIH and NSF funds, as well as the targeted attacks on universities such as Columbia and UPenn over culture war matters, are reckless and destructive. If this does not stop soon, this could set back American science and research for decades.
2. It’s also about power and control. “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and Trump and his administration are reveling in their abilities to withhold federal dollars (paid for with the tax monies from all American taxpayers, Trump- and non-Trump voter alike) from targeted agencies and institutions unless they meet whatever diktats they demand.
It’s a scary time for science in America now. Science is already dealing with the “publish-or-perish” culture of academia, the fact that academics are pressured to raise recurrent streams of grant money in order to earn tenure, and the fact that industrial labs are increasingly driven by short-term business pursuits instead of longer-term, more speculative projects. These disruptive freezes of NIH and NSF funds, as well as the targeted attacks on universities such as Columbia and UPenn over culture war matters, are reckless and destructive. If this does not stop soon, this could set back American science and research for decades.
The universities took sides in the culture war instead of remaining neutral educational institutions like they are supposed to be. I have little sympathy for them now that the other side is firing back. I don't want to see valuable research at these universities cut back either, but they need to take their share of the blame and remove the political cancer eating them alive. It's not the physics department that's drawing fire from the Trump administration.
It's many departments, including physics, including education.
This specific article is part of a series, this part is about the National Institutes of Health where the cuts are so deep that:
> the political cancer eating them alive.
This sounds hyperbolic, perhaps sourced from a Fox News or Tucker Carlson take on DEI in the sciences.
This specific article is part of a series, this part is about the National Institutes of Health where the cuts are so deep that:
People inside the Division of Intramural Research (the in-house research groups) have been told in so many words that "the vast majority of our legitimate DIR ordering needs are not currently able to be fulfilled".
So they're having to triage and try to get spending done that directly impacts human and animal safety and ongoing clinical research.
> the political cancer eating them alive.
This sounds hyperbolic, perhaps sourced from a Fox News or Tucker Carlson take on DEI in the sciences.
My dad runs a university lab and is forced to put DEI nonsense in his research grants. It's real. And none of the front line researchers in hard science likes it, but they aren't the ones making the rules.
The biggest motivation IMO is just punishing universities. The first move cutting overhead costs made this pretty clear to me. It was a shrewd move: if you squint, and use no critical thinking, you could be convinced they’ll still fund science all the same but are forcing university bureaucracies to be more “efficient”. In practice it’s just a massive cut to research universities, cause they’re viewed as enemies of the current ascendant right.
The other thing, IMO, is that it’s admitting we have no longer have any aspiration to technical innovation. If the tech oligarchs actually depended on hiring “the best and brightest,” they’ve be fighting this tooth and nail. Instead, they’re perfectly happy to destroy the education pipeline because they no longer need to make good products. They’ve attained monopoly status: all they need are lobbyists and a good legal team, the quality of their product is irrelevant. (The only spot where they still seem to be competing is “AI”).
The other thing, IMO, is that it’s admitting we have no longer have any aspiration to technical innovation. If the tech oligarchs actually depended on hiring “the best and brightest,” they’ve be fighting this tooth and nail. Instead, they’re perfectly happy to destroy the education pipeline because they no longer need to make good products. They’ve attained monopoly status: all they need are lobbyists and a good legal team, the quality of their product is irrelevant. (The only spot where they still seem to be competing is “AI”).
I think your first paragraph is closer to the truth. Going after the "commanding heights" of progressivism is the goal. That's also why the federal bureaucracy is being targeted.
NIH funds a lot of studies that provides data against their political policies.
The two broad things I see are that academia has for years been claimed to be an extreme-left wing indoctrination complex, increasingly broadly targeted as things like climate change denial became Republican loyalty tests, and medicine became a special focus as anti-vaccination became a core belief. This works as a political ad telling people that they’re really hurting their enemies.
The other big goal is probably financial: they really want to give rich people tax cuts, and there’s no way to do that without cutting social programs like Medicaid which even their voters want left untouched. They appear to be continuing to claim that there is so much waste and fraud that they’ll be able to pay for it by cutting that, and hoping that people will be distracted until it’s too late. Based on the 2017 version, I’m expecting some kind of time-delay where the tax cuts kick in immediately but cuts aren’t forced until after some very “optimistic” growth predictions fail to materialize.
The other big goal is probably financial: they really want to give rich people tax cuts, and there’s no way to do that without cutting social programs like Medicaid which even their voters want left untouched. They appear to be continuing to claim that there is so much waste and fraud that they’ll be able to pay for it by cutting that, and hoping that people will be distracted until it’s too late. Based on the 2017 version, I’m expecting some kind of time-delay where the tax cuts kick in immediately but cuts aren’t forced until after some very “optimistic” growth predictions fail to materialize.
foxglacier(5)
My LO has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's officially for 5 years. Memory was lost, didn't remember his mother, or past life, acted like a 12 yr old. he was 75, He had some terrible night as he kept asking to go to the bathroom and get up at night. The doctor prescribed a sleeping pill (zolpidem), but it had a very bad side effect on him (delusions and hallucinations) and we decided not to give it any more and went for the Neuro X program that was introduced to us by his primary care doctor, he was on the Neuro X program for Alzheimer’s disease from Uine Health Centre for 6 months. The treatment relieved symptoms significantly, After the treatment he’s all of a sudden back active again, almost all his symptoms are gone, no signs of agitations, his sleeps pattern are back to normal. His memory loss has greatly improved and he tells stories about his past life, we got the Neuro X program from uinehealthcentre. com. I want to clarify that my comment is not a paid promotion or any form of advertisement. I am absolutely confident that this program offers a viable solution and hope someone find it helpful.
Reads like an ad though.
To that end, I believe that this is the time to invest in the US biotechnology ecosystem so that we remain competitive with China. The ongoing crisis at the NIH is antithetical to this goal, as Derek Lowe's blog posts describe.
[1] https://centuryofbio.com/p/commoditization [2] https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/the-drug-industry-is-havin...