Threats to American science's dominance

[gil]

America has been a dominant economic power for decades, and I think there are solid arguments for science and basic research being critical to that. Basic research happens mostly at universities, and then is translated to applied research - both at universities and in private firms. This is true in medicine, electronics, physical sciences, and other fields.

Two things are happening in the current presidential administration that are threatening this:

1. Cuts to research at leading universities.

2. Restrictions on International students and international researchers.

I consider both to be long term problems. There might be some short-term gains (e.g., saving money, scoring policy points), but I think we are threatening the system of scientific research that has made America wealthy and dominant.

My prediction is that other countries will step up and fill the void. China is obvious, but I think we will also see France, Australia, and other countries increasing support for research at universities and working to attract the most talented students and researchers from around the world.

I loathe the thought of America shooting itself in the foot like this, and falling behind. But that is how I see it.

[bpj]

Why should our tax dollars be funding it? Not like if they make a discovery they're going to turn around and pay it back.

They'll just profit from our dollars then charge our citizens more for it than they'll charge other countries.

[gil]

I'm not positive about this, but my impression is that there is no return to basic research. It's in applied research where products (and potential revenue streams) are created. But even so, I'd argue that the basic research benefits the country as a whole, and therefore is worth funding.

I'd say it's like public education: We benefit from an educated public, so we don't expect parents to be the only ones why pay for schools.

bpj: You've got a good point about charging more here than in other countries, at least when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Isn't that concern the point of medicare and medicaid being able to negotiate drug prices?

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Yet, another thread by Gil that is trashing the Trump Administration.

Gil, do you see it yet?

And to answer your question..... if a good [non political] university wants to get a grant for [NEEDED] research, it should be available. No that shit-research of " what does coffee do to your body" kind of crap.

[gil]

Do I see that I disagree with President Trump on these specific issues. I sure do. Are you trying to tell me that I start all sorts of threads and that I am trashing everything that the President does? You are wrong on both accounts. (I've tried to point out before that there are things that I agree with, such as securing the southern border, or closing various government DEI departments, and I agree with many of his goals. Maybe I should make that my signature so you notice.)

I don't know anything specific about that coffee research, but I suspect there is some context. Sort of like $600 hammers for the military. In isolation it sounds terrible. In context, there is more to the story. But do I want taxpayer money going to fund something that has already been answered and studied to death? Heck no. (And by the way, as far as I know government research funding is reviewed by panels of other researchers in the field, and I can't imagine anyone would support a "we already know all this stuff" project. It's not how it works.)

Do YOU support policies that will harm our scientific research capabilities?

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

I believe that Harvard and the other ultra-liberal American-hating universities can be replaced with other universities that are not hostel toward America.

[gil]

I think Donn pointed out in another thread (sorry to bring you into another argument, man ) that the research grant applications come from individuals, not universities. The application will have to make the case that the researcher has the capabilities to conduct the research. So if I apply for research funding as a non-university person, I have to say that I can carry out the research with the computing power in my home office and the equipment in my shop. Obviously I'm not going to get many computational biomedicine or partial acceleration grants!

But leading universities often have these capabilities, and the federal agencies can review the qualifications off the university-affiliated researcher and the universities capabilities. That is why researchers at the University of Washington can get research grants that I could not, and likely a researcher at Seattle Central College could not either.

If Harvard is allowing illegal anti-Semitic speech or following discriminatory practices, let's bring the weight of federal law to bear on them. But I disagree with harming our scientific research capabilities because we have a separate agenda. America future wealth, the next generation and the generation after that, deserves that we maintain our world best research. Getting rid of that because we don't like unrelated polities is "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

AI response to the question:
how is the money the us gives to Harvard used

The US provides funding to Harvard through federal grants and contracts, primarily to support research activities. These funds are crucial for enabling groundbreaking innovations across various fields, impacting areas like medicine, engineering, and science.
Here's a more detailed look at how federal funding impacts Harvard:

Research Support:
Federal funding is a significant source of support for research at Harvard, playing a key role in enabling studies that benefit society.
Impact on Specific Schools:

Federal funding is particularly important for schools like the School of Public Health, where a large portion of the budget is derived from federal sources.
Research Projects:

The funding supports research projects across various disciplines, including those related to tuberculosis, ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), obesity, and cancer.
Potential Impacts of Cuts:

Cuts or delays in federal funding can have significant consequences, including layoffs, research project pauses, and potential impacts on financial stability.
University's Perspective:

Harvard views federal funding as crucial for its mission of research and education, emphasizing the importance of these partnerships for national and global health and security.

As I've said before, there are many, many, many Universities with this same research departments that can do the work. If Harvard can't keep it's nose clean, give the research money to other universities. Will this impact Harvard? Hell, yes. The students and grad students that want to do this kind of research will leave to the other universities to continue their research. Then Harvard can take all the Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, and any other people and teach them how to be proper terrorists.

[gil]

I think you are underestimating the difficulty of truly world class research. But yes, let's dumb down American and let China take over. There is no guarantee that researchers who leave Harvard (or Columbia, or Stanford, or Johns Hopkins) are going to join the same department at another university in the U.S.

Meanwhile, I'll be tinkering with my backyard gene splicer.

[Seattle or Bust]

I think you are underestimating the difficulty of truly world class research. But yes, let's dumb down American and let China take over. There is no guarantee that researchers who leave Harvard (or Columbia, or Stanford, or Johns Hopkins) are going to join the same department at another university in the U.S.

Meanwhile, I'll be tinkering with my backyard gene splicer.

I could care less if someone at Harvard loves America or not...

But I do not understand why Harvard can't take bright American students and turn them into the best and brightest in science, medicine, what have you... isn't that the point?

They say there's a shortage of "STEM talent" in the US... I call bullshit. And if there is a shortage in STEM talent... then fill the shortage by improving standards in math, science, etc... among federally funded public education. Highlight gifted American kids who have an affinity for STEM subjects and get them to the levels of people from other countries. Don't just throw your hands up and bring in half a million students from India and China.

Everyone knows they're doing it cause they know people from India and China will work themselves to death or for the lowest salaries available.