Because the leopards hunger for your face, you dangerous intellectual.
Anti-intellectualism was fine with this well-educated moron - supported by him, even - until it affected him, it would seem.
I struggle to refer to these people as intellectuals considering these people have multiple certificates to show but otherwise they do fuckall with their brain.
I've recently seen them referred to as midwits. People just dangerous though to cause severe harm. Personally i think that's giving them too much credit, these days I'm inclined to believe there is no job you couldn't train a monkey to do and these monkeys were just persistent enough to be trained.
Not any job, but yeah, most jobs require persistence more than smarts. Sure, being smart helps, but it's not required at all.
Sophomores. Wise fools.
The living demonstration of the difference between intelligence and wisdom.
Ah the defining characteristic of the conservative, an absolute vaccuum of empathy
I really cannot fathom how anyone that has been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything they've been doing during their PhD could vote for Trump and his fascists.
They were very clear what they were going to do and that included cutting this support.
It's a huge assault on the sciences and Trump being in power and acting as king has already been impacting American researchers in hard sciences to the point where papers on physics and chemistry that are under peer review are requested by authors (and in some cases journals that should be investigated by COPE) to be substantially changed.
The censorship is incredibly wide ranging and these idiot PhDs don't seem to have woken up yet to how bad it is.
As a PhD student you'd be surprised at how many stupid people are in here. I've heard of people talking about using holy water in mouse before experimenting because they are "possessed by devil", people talking about how "I'm a liberal but female president isn't going to be strong enough for our country" to their female colleagues, talked with people who told " they[gay people] should just get help" to a gay colleague because her bible says being gay is a sin, those are just extra fun examples, there's a lot more in daily life that after joining PhD I've become a lot skeptic of any research or paper people cite for something. Because lot's of people just write sentences first then search for papers that agrees, instead of doing actual literature review and learning about diverse view on the matter.
I'm not surprised sadly - I have a PhD in chemistry and then continued to a postdoc and teaching before heading elsewhere. During my undergraduate there was a woman on the course who was very good and very competent but was also evangelical to the point of believing in a young Earth. To her, concepts such as half-lives were just lies that needed to be learnt.
Normally that has been flushed out by the time of doing a PhD, but if not it really should be.
r our country” to their female colleagues, talked with people who told " they[gay people] should just get help" to a gay colleague because her bible says being gay is a sin, those are just extra fun examples, there’s a lot more in daily life that after joining PhD I’ve become a lot skeptic of any research or paper people cite for something. Because lot’s of people just write sentences first then search for papers that agrees, instead of doing actual literature review and learning about diverse view on the matter.
You're in the wrong institution, LOL
PhD is doing something very niche, intelligence and logical thinking makes it easier, but you can easily just submit a paper in multiple journals until one accepts. Of course your advisor and committee are supposed to weed out those people, but in this culture where more students graduated -> faster tenure +more funding, and everything is measured in numbers, everyone is encouraged to increase the numbers instead of quality. So just because you were able to publish something in a small niche field doesn't mean you know a lot about the world, or you agree with what other scientists think.
I know different universities and countries have their own system which probably have higher quality control, but this publish and perish culture combined with the competitiveness and lots of money involved in all steps is bound to game the system towards anti-science. Professors don't really have the luxury of trying things that don't work for years anymore.
bmit a paper in multiple journals until one accepts. Of course your advisor and committee are supposed to weed out those people, but in this culture where more students graduated -> faster tenure +more funding, and everything is measured in numbers, eve
it depends. in the US, it's publish or perish if you're in PhD/postdoc phase, but once you're tenure track/faculty it's about get funded or fuck off. The latter is a lot more stringent filter (and not necessarily a great one, like look at the lady who co-invented the mRNA vaccine technology getting booted from UPenn for lack of funding, but yet getting the Nobel). I haven't encountered people with super wacky beliefs beyond a certain level.
Woken? You trying to make them woke?
TL;DR: this isn't stupidity unraveling. It's the Oligarchic takeover of academia and science
It's cute that the post assumes ignorance. We are way past the Hanlon's razor phase. Cutting indirects is a way to punch $10-100M holes into elite universities' budgets overnight, sow fear and render them financially vulnerable. The prestigious universities will be bailed out by private donations and boom, you have an unprecedented scale of oligarchic influence of leading academic institutions and academic research.
It's the same playbook that they used for public schools, strip funding, let the school flounder, then they'll start asking "well what have these universities contributed lately? Why should we fund their research when they haven't discovered anything recently?"
The only colleges that will stay standing will be the networking hubs for their rich sons to plot the best ways to ~~exploit the working class~~ get business and economics degrees.
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
A conservative scientist, that's a new one for me. It feels like an oxymoron.
It's like the doctors and nurses who are antivax they are not oxymorons, they are fucking morons
I still remember working for a medical office during the beginning of COVID and seeing MULTIPLE SURGEONS wear shit like masks that say "this mask does nothing", which makes me question their credentials or the crackerjack box they got their doctorate from.
Always figured surgeons are just really well educated mechanics, and don’t necessarily need to grasp the biology in the same way chemists and internal medicine practitioners might.
Just a regular moron.
Or a homophobe/racist.
What kind of scientist do you think work for big pharma, Exxon Mobile or Raytheon? It certainly ain’t leftist scientists.
I'm not surprised that a scientist votes for Trump, I don't think they're some kind of super intelligent superhumans. I'm surprised that a scientist self-describes as a conservative, because being a scientist is about discovering new things, while being a conservative is about everything staying the same.
while being a conservative is about everything staying the same.
Or "while being a conservative is about not discovering new things, as it might challenge their status quo"
Mostly just normal people with families trying to make ends meet... Scientists aren't like cartoon mad scientists, my dude, they're just normal people with careers.
Did I say they weren’t normal?
From personal experience working in DoD research, the amount of compartmentalization a lot of those people have drove me insane. I knew quite a few young earth creationists & fake moon landing believers when I was there. I definitely think a lot of those folks think that their military funding is safer under trump, and everyone outside of their field is a "corrupt leftist scientist"
We do not get rich off of research. We are very educated and could make more in things like medical specialties. We do it to help others. This is not profit. This is not theft. It saves lives. It creates drugs, therapies, treatments, and cures.
You mean in a commie way? /s
We really need to study why people believe conservative when they lie but disbelieve them when they tell the truth.
"Because HER EMAIL! LOCK HER UP!"
"Btw, prosecution against a political opponent is a witchhunt... FREE TRUMP!"
"BACK THE BLUE"
"Also, FUCK THE POLICE at the capitol building on Jan 6"
🙄
Leaded water, brain injuries, or education that teaches them 1+1=3
Some version of only hearing what they want to I guess?
OP:
This is not money wasted. If they want to lower it, it needs to be done gradually to give universities time to adjust.
What exactly about the orange blob made you think he would have a carefully measured plan to do literally ANYthing?
These people are so fucking delusional-- they hear and see exactly what they want. Check out this galaxy brain:
One of the things they are doing is identifying waste. I'm sure if enough researchers make a racket about this specific thing it will get attention.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that'll happen. Dumpy responds so well to listening to what the plebes want. He'll get right on fixing a problem he created just as soon as he gets off the golf course. Aaaaany day now...
I have a PhD, I work in biotech and have been working on obtaining state and federal grants with University Minnesota. Indirects are like 55-60% for land grant institutions that don't have to pay for the property they operate on, additionally they have nearly 40k undergrads paying 17-38k a year in tuition. So the scope of the research and the staff we can budget for comes from the 40-45% remaining, this includes funding techs, post docs, and the personnel that directly run the projects.
No I didn't vote for these fools, and exponentially more damage than good is coming, and I'm good friends with postdocs who are getting screwed in real time by this nonsense.
Nobody ask industry how much they crib (read: steal) from publically funded research.
Why leave us hanging? Go on...
Drug companies largely use pathways discovered by academic research (which is much more trial and error) as targets for pharmaceuticals. "Steal" is a bit of a strong word, but they are okay with paying students and post-docs starvation wages. Essentially, it's privatizing profits and publicizing losses.
Thanks for the explanation. I literally took it to mean something completely different so I'm glad you elaborated.
We discussed it thoroughly when they laid out the plan to dismantle the country and make it a dictatorship hyper capitalist stigh. You chose that option, presumably because so many are uneducated swines and future billionaires
In all honesty though, 60%+ overheads from a university is incredibly high. To an extent that shows that there is a large amount of management and administrative staff not contributing directly to the work. I'm not in medicine, but in the EU projects I'm in only 0-25% of overheads are funded. Though, I can imagine medicine requiring more than the hard sciences.
60%+ is what it takes to lease buildings and pay salaries in NYC, Boston, SF, LA, etc. So, are you okay with wrecking science in those cities?
Have you any concept of how many people would be suffering or dead if Boston’s scientists were flipping burgers instead of making discoveries?
1st pig organ transplant. 1st anesthesia. 1st live donor organ transplant. GLP1 agonists. Enbrel. Gene editing. Human genome. All out of Boston. Off the top of my head.
60% makes sense when you consider something like LIGO, or other real-estate heavy physics experimentation grounds, like a neutrino detector.
I’m under the impression that the cuts are from ~30% to ~15%
The cuts are from whatever to 15%. Typically, in expensive cities that are world-class scientific hubs, the indirect rate is over 60%.
Rules:
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}