I have yet to hear "lack of money isn't the problem." Maybe I missed that part. One successful funding structure doesn't mean the whole rest of it is broken? I mean, correlation effects, only fits some types of research, etc. The system can be better AND is underfunded.
-
-
Point being: we spend *enormous* amounts of money today. But efficacy with which we do so seems quite poor. (We've discovered *one* broad-spectrum antiviral drug since Fauci took over NIAID 36(!!) years ago[1]. Is the problem really insufficient funding?) https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-medicina-universitaria-304-articulo-history-progress-antiviral-drugs-from-S166557961500037X …
-
Increasing funding is good. But the point is (usually) not to throw more money at the things we currently throw a lot of money at. It's to broaden the set of things we throw money at, and increase the number of people coming up with new and different approaches.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah it's not bad! I predict more vaccine spending in the years to come (bold, I know).
-
Gargantuan efforts can have drawbacks: The brainpower behind ITER and NIF is not behind other stuff. Sure there are spillovers; but if something else ends up working it will retrospectively have seemed a subpar use of resources. (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-015-0053-y … )
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.