393
PhD moron asks why no one is talking about NIH cuts
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
393 points (100.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
4511 readers
101 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
yup. Ironically, NIH grants lead to quite tangible discoveries, and institutions with the highest indirects (overhead funding) usually have proportionally higher rate of major discoveries. So the original poster isn't wrong about this hamstringing US biomedical research. On another thread someone proposed that Canada should have a grant-buyout brain drain program for refugees from US academia. It was actually a pretty smart one. The EU could also bank on this.
I've heard rumblings of foreign countries already offering deals to phds in the US.
yup. the US will taste its own medicine with brain drain