[denom]

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.

[brookst]

The oligarchs can’t stand to see a single dollar go to a legit purpose though.

[linguae]

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.”

[throwaway657656]

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.

[bdangubic]

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 :)

[RRWagner]

No, the oligarchs can't stand seeing a single dollar go to the poor, and when one is a billionaire, everyone else is poor.

[iimblack]

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.

[grandempire]

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?

[acdha]

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.

[queuebert]

> Even twenty years ago getting an NIH R1 was considered an important career accomplishment.

R01

[acdha]

Thanks, corrected. I stopped supporting researchers in the 2000s.

[brookst]

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?

[grandempire]

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?

[jltsiren]

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.

[grandempire]

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?

[jltsiren]

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.

[jmye]

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.

[brookst]

“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.

[grandempire]

> It’s not that anyone’s doing anything wrong,

I think plenty of things are being done wrong.

[brookst]

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.