when you think of scientific research, do you imagine someone having an immediate eureka moment in a vacuum and writing a paper without having ever considered a problem before? do you understand that scientific progress takes years of dedication, hard work, trial and error, and then finally (occasionally) success?

do you understand long-term survival and the necessity of planning for future generations, or are you just looking for the equivalent of this quarter's shareholder returns when it comes to advancing the species?

▲

infamouscow 4 days ago | parent [-]

As a published researcher operating outside traditional academia, I find this rhetoric somewhat tiresome, as it overlooks the systemic interplay between public funding, academic training, and industrial commercialization in scientific advancement.

To address your query on long-term planning for the species versus short-term gains, consider the role of tax dollars allocated through NSF grants to universities. These grants primarily support basic research and graduate education in fields like chemistry and biotechnology, which inherently trains the next generation of skilled workers for industry. For instance, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) provides stipends and tuition support to outstanding graduate students pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in STEM.

Similarly, the NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program funds interdisciplinary training for graduate students, often in areas such as chemical ecology or bio-inspired technologies, equipping them with advanced skills through hands-on research and stipends of at least 12 months.

NSF accounts for approximately 25% of federal support for basic research at U.S. colleges and universities, much of which involves training students who subsequently enter the workforce.

Most of these NSF-supported graduates are hired by multinational corporations in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and chemical manufacturing—entities like Pfizer, Moderna, or Dow Chemical, which are among the largest in history.

Once in industry, these professionals conduct proprietary research behind closed doors to protect intellectual property and competitive advantages. The resulting products, novel drugs or biotechnological therapies, are frequently priced at astronomical levels, often rendering them unaffordable without insurance subsidies or government interventions. This raises serious questions about the equity of public investment: taxpayers fund the foundational training and basic discoveries, yet the downstream benefits accrue disproportionately to private shareholders through high-margin sales.

In essence, while scientific progress indeed demands years of dedication, the current system subsidizes corporate profits via public education of the workforce.

▲

3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

text0404 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

so... that education and research are still valuable and we should still invest in them because they contribute to the US economy?

there may be ethical concerns, but (as i'm tired of explaining to people like you) the answer isn't "burn the entire system down". you're a "researcher" (who ostensibly engages in work requiring strong logical reasoning) so this comment is genuinely baffling. so you don't believe that scientific progress and the advancement of our species can occur because a percentage of NSF grantees go on to work for private companies? do you believe this system can be reformed, or are the ethical concerns enough for you to support defunding all scientific research? what do you think about your peers who publish articles like this [1]?

"This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that I've seen in my 50 years in this business," says Michael Osterholm, who runs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "It is baseless, and we will pay a tremendous price in terms of illnesses and deaths. I'm extremely worried about it."

personally, i think your concerns are totally valid and should be addressed. but how are you coming into a thread to defend the defunding of public scientific research in light of the quote above? do you believe that the loss of human life is worth it?

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/06/nx...

	▲	infamouscow 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		First, regarding logical fallacies: your response relies on an emotional appeal by invoking potential "loss of human life" and an appeal to authority via the Osterholm quote. To provide context on Osterholm, he notably advised in the early days of COVID, when scientific guidance was critical, that a vaccine would take years to develop. For instance, during a March 2020 appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, he expressed this view with considerable confidence. In reality, vaccines were authorized within eight months, highlighting the fallibility of experts. Second, on NSF funding: the NSF supports a broad spectrum of research, but not all areas yield equivalent advancements. It's inaccurate to conflate progress in one domain (e.g., math, computer science) with others, or to assume all funded work inherently advances humanity. Consider a hypothetical -- if an executive order allocated $10 million from the NSF for alchemy studies, chemistry departments nationwide would see professors submitting tailored grant proposals, positioning their expertise as ideal for such investigations. This reflects the grant-driven nature of academia, where tenure and career progression incentivize alignment with available funding, regardless of intrinsic merit. Academics, like any professionals, are not immune to societal pressures such as over-credentialing and the need to secure resources. Third, on reform versus defunding: I am open to reforming the system to address ethical concerns, such as the subsidization of corporate profits through public training of industrial workers. However, the academic structure has insulated itself over decades through entrenched rules and policies, making meaningful change challenging. If you propose reform, could you outline the first three concrete steps grounded in existing mechanisms to initiate it? Vague aspirations often falter when confronted with reality, such as university governance and federal grant protocols. Finally, on the value of NSF-funded research: your assumption that this funding directly prevents loss of life lacks empirical support. We should critically evaluate whether specific allocations are worthwhile. Are you open to the possibility that some are not? If so, what evidence would persuade you otherwise? Defunding ineffective or misaligned programs isn't about "burning the system down" but about prioritizing resources for genuine long-term societal benefit.