| ▲ | wek 2 hours ago |
| Funding for basic science and medicen should be a bi-partisan winning issue. It is good for America. It is good for the world. It helps eventually lift the poor. It helps business. Its something the government can and should do that is hard for private business to do. It helps human knowledge. I'm motivated to reverse this trend. |
|
| ▲ | dragonwriter 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Funding for basic science and medicen should be a bi-partisan winning issue. It is good for America. “Good” is never an objective question, its always one dependent on values, and values are often not bipartisan. Everyone believes everyone should share their values, but if they did, there wouldn't be different ideological factions in the first place. |
| |
| ▲ | spott 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > there wouldn’t be different ideological factions in the first place. Maybe I’m just very jaded, but I don’t think this is true. Our values are significantly more aligned than we generally believe, however as long as there is power to be gained by creating the illusion of a difference of values, there will be factions dedicated to ensuring that illusion is maintained. | |
| ▲ | dmix 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't even think this one is a bipartisan issue. This just seems to just be coming from the White House. The article said > The Senate and House rejected the White House’s proposed budget cuts Since WH can't control the budget they are changing how it's doled out by giving larger payments to a smaller group. |
|
|
| ▲ | nphardon 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The republican party is explicitly anti-science. One of the ripple effects of the anti-science agenda is an anti-education mentality among republican civilians. An educated populace is the enemy of the U.S. right wing. |
|
| ▲ | watwut 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It is good for the world. It helps eventually lift the poor. Not bipartisan. One specific party is literally against already existing medical progress, because it helps weak people they thing should die. > It helps business. Not bipartisan unless it benefits super rich millionaires businesses. The moment it benefits their competition, it ceases to be bipartisan. |
|
| ▲ | blindriver 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | malicka 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s exactly the reason the research and development funded by government grants is rarely done in the private sector: It isn’t immediately profitable, and we don’t know for sure if it ever will. It’s important to put man-hours behind even theories that will seemingly never be useful (“trash”), both because it is impossible to know for sure, and because that is the underpinning of science. Exploration for exploration’s sake, knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Not everything learned by the human race needs to be immediately useful; it all contributes to a vast tapestry. Not to mention that if we focus solely on profitability and utility, we do bad science: Why do you think we have a reproduction crisis? Because reproducing experiments isn’t sexy nor profitable, so no one is incentivized to do it. We need more arrows, full-stop. |
|
|
| ▲ | tomp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Scientists started spouting far-left propaganda. That’s when they lost half of the voters. |
| |
| ▲ | mindslight an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | So scientists shouldn't be allowed to hold their own political opinions, or organizational leaders shouldn't be allowed to exercise some autonomy with regards to the culture they foster, or educated people shouldn't tend to favor the political tribe that focuses on constructive solutions, or what? What is your specific critique here? Whatever it might be, it seems like we could have instituted a targeted reform for that specific problem rather than self-immolating our educational institutions and continuing to hand the reigns of world leadership to China. | |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I find it extremely hard to believe that basic medicine and searching for cures or relieving aging is either leftist or rightist. | | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
