The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine | A quiet policy change means the government is making fewer bets on long-term science.

Comments

• thisbenzingring@lemmy.today ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  the boomers “fuck you I got mine” mindset as their last hoora while the orange shit stain is in power.

  then a Democratic president will come in and want to put it back to the levels from before Diaper Don and the conservatives will have a fucking fit. Throw shit like the caged monkeys they are and we will continue this fucking parade for another generation

  source
• Redkid1324@lemmy.world ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  While I agree this administration went too far in not funding stuff, there were A LOT of grants that were useless and frivolous.

  source

  • silence7@slrpnk.net ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Mostly not; they were awarded through competitive process. It’s remarkably hard to get something frivolous through that.

    What does happen a lot is that basic science isn’t immediately impactful but has a modest chance of producing something really useful. For example the GLP-1 drugs were developed as a result of a study into gila monster venom. Nobody is going to say “gila monster venom is useful” but the basic research into how gila monsters regulate appetite turned out to be very meaningful.

    source

    • Redkid1324@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Ok fair enough but how does something like that get through the competitive process then? On the surface it sounds frivolous which would mean it wouldn’t be competitive?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Aatube@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Could you give some examples?

    source

    • Redkid1324@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The cost of some of these are insane too.

      stacker.com/…/some-strangest-projects-funded-taxp…

      www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/…/ss-AA1KJLys

      I personally don’t understand gain of function and why we would ever do that.

      osp.od.nih.gov/…/gain-of-function-research/

      There was one person that was searching for parasitic snails…for some reason.

      Again, I think the pendulum swung too far for this admin however some of these grants, in my opinion, are frivolous and we could all probably agree WAY too expensive for the work that is being done.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • ContriteErudite@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I’m genuinely curious what you and others who share your thoughts have in mind when they say there are a lot of useless and frivolous scientific studies. Can you please share some examples, I’d like to learn more about them.

    As far as I know, receiving government funding for a scientific study is a highly competitive process. Proposals are examined by qualified experts who evaluate their merit, relevance, and scientific rigor long before money is awarded.

    I can understand why non-scientists might jump to the wrong conclusions, especially if they only ever see sensational headlines or oversimplified editorials. But this is exactly why it’s so important to recognize our own limits and defer to the people who actually work in these fields. It takes maturity and intellectual humility to admit when something is outside our wheelhouse.

    Curious people and scientists alike know to read past the headline, because that’s where the actual knowledge lives. The studies I know of that are most often mocked as “frivolous” are examples of how misleading a surface-level reading can be:

    “Drunk ants fall mostly on their right side.” This is actually an urban-myth-tier claim. There has never been a funded study or published paper demonstrating a one-sided “drunk ant” effect.

    “Cocaine makes honey bees dance differently.” The bee study wasn’t about amusing scientists with drugged insects. It examined how cocaine affects reward pathways and communication. This research was relevant to understanding addiction and motivation across species, including humans.

    “Do woodpeckers get headaches?” This wasn’t a joke experiment. Woodpeckers were used as a natural model to study how repeated head impacts can occur without concussive injury, producing insights into human head trauma and designing better safety gear.

    Ultimately, federal funding for scientific research is rigorous and competitive. Truly frivolous projects rarely make it through the approval process. What often looks absurd to the public is, in reality, carefully designed work grounded in expertise we don’t always see or fully understand.

    This is exactly why listening to experts matters, and why it’s so dangerous that American policy makers are completely discounting scientific knowledge and expertise.

    source

    • Redkid1324@lemmy.world ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      First of all, I would like to commend you on your calm and respectful demeanor. I comprised a few in a comment below. I am interested in information on the approval process and what goes into that. On the outside, it appears that it’s just a sign off sheet and popularity contest so I’d like to educate myself on that process more.

      source

      • -> View More Comments