great perspective article, it is about time other entities step up more. hopefully our world can survive another 3.5 years of this incarnation of the Trump Show. Hello Mr. Buffet, maybe a good time to spend a few extra billions lying around?
Thanks, I appreciate your instinct to push beyond the standard line. Only when we recognize how much money is being directed by private sources into research is the public in a position to pressure business to use its research potentially wisely, ie: to consider the common good also and not only maximization of profit.
I would think we’d need to further examine the nature of the research done by universities as opposed to that done by Meta, et al. Very different goals, so very different outcomes?
But I’m not sure that should make us feel better. A $150 billion R&D budget from Big Tech isn’t the same as NIH grants spread across 2,500 institutions. The goals, incentives, and access aren’t remotely comparable.
Sure, Meta or Google might fund AI research that advances medicine or education,but are they going to fund slow, boring, unprofitable work on rare diseases or plant genetics? Probably not. And if federal money gets cut while elite universities get politically targeted, who’s left to train the next generation of scientists who aren’t building ads or apps?
So yes, the money is out there. But that doesn’t mean the system isn’t being warped in a way that might take decades to see clearly. And by then, we may not like the answers.
As a side note, Gates allows only 15% of its grant money for G&A expense and yet Harvard was requiring 50%. NIH money also has too large G&A . If government money would follow the Gates model, more money could get into real research. No need to pay high salaries for administrators. Just look at the math, 5 billion -50% = 2.5 for research. 3 billion - 15% = 2.55 for research, both sides get what they want, cuts but research is still is OK.
Fair to point out that there is capital to absorb some of the federal cuts. What is missing is the ideology and authoritarian agenda that will shape research agendas and constrain freedom of thought. There is great peril in this. Lysenkoism comes to mind. Of course, science, like all human activity, has had many flaws and is imperfect. For all the shortcomings the system we've had for the past 60 years or so is much more preferable to the path we are currently on.
such a balanced view without the hysteria that we have heard in the media regarding these cuts. I guess time will tell whether they cumulative impact of Trump's cuts will reduce the long term growth rate of the US. I still don't know if there is an objective measurement of the impact on lives due to the USAID cuts.
Yes. All that matters to me is sounding contrarian.
Why don’t you engage what I actually said about the cuts being stupid and harmful and that it is also true that vast amounts of $ are being spent by other sources even so.
I grudgingly agree with you, usually. And again, I, somewhat grudgingly, agree with you on this topic. However, I know the NIH tracks the grants they provide to researchers. (My talented son does this at the NIH.)
If research funding is primarily privatized, will grant tracking be done as carefully and effectively?
great perspective article, it is about time other entities step up more. hopefully our world can survive another 3.5 years of this incarnation of the Trump Show. Hello Mr. Buffet, maybe a good time to spend a few extra billions lying around?
Thanks, I appreciate your instinct to push beyond the standard line. Only when we recognize how much money is being directed by private sources into research is the public in a position to pressure business to use its research potentially wisely, ie: to consider the common good also and not only maximization of profit.
I would think we’d need to further examine the nature of the research done by universities as opposed to that done by Meta, et al. Very different goals, so very different outcomes?
Yes, commercial R&D always has an element of being geared towards products but with Meta and VR and robotics that line is often fuzzy.
But I’m not sure that should make us feel better. A $150 billion R&D budget from Big Tech isn’t the same as NIH grants spread across 2,500 institutions. The goals, incentives, and access aren’t remotely comparable.
Sure, Meta or Google might fund AI research that advances medicine or education,but are they going to fund slow, boring, unprofitable work on rare diseases or plant genetics? Probably not. And if federal money gets cut while elite universities get politically targeted, who’s left to train the next generation of scientists who aren’t building ads or apps?
So yes, the money is out there. But that doesn’t mean the system isn’t being warped in a way that might take decades to see clearly. And by then, we may not like the answers.
As a side note, Gates allows only 15% of its grant money for G&A expense and yet Harvard was requiring 50%. NIH money also has too large G&A . If government money would follow the Gates model, more money could get into real research. No need to pay high salaries for administrators. Just look at the math, 5 billion -50% = 2.5 for research. 3 billion - 15% = 2.55 for research, both sides get what they want, cuts but research is still is OK.
Fair to point out that there is capital to absorb some of the federal cuts. What is missing is the ideology and authoritarian agenda that will shape research agendas and constrain freedom of thought. There is great peril in this. Lysenkoism comes to mind. Of course, science, like all human activity, has had many flaws and is imperfect. For all the shortcomings the system we've had for the past 60 years or so is much more preferable to the path we are currently on.
such a balanced view without the hysteria that we have heard in the media regarding these cuts. I guess time will tell whether they cumulative impact of Trump's cuts will reduce the long term growth rate of the US. I still don't know if there is an objective measurement of the impact on lives due to the USAID cuts.
Does it really matter so much to you to sound contrarian? The Trump cuts are an unmitigated disaster, and your "bright side of things" is shallow.
Yes. All that matters to me is sounding contrarian.
Why don’t you engage what I actually said about the cuts being stupid and harmful and that it is also true that vast amounts of $ are being spent by other sources even so.
You need to read the article several times you missed the point completely.
I grudgingly agree with you, usually. And again, I, somewhat grudgingly, agree with you on this topic. However, I know the NIH tracks the grants they provide to researchers. (My talented son does this at the NIH.)
If research funding is primarily privatized, will grant tracking be done as carefully and effectively?