I was listening to a Podcast today and one of the dudes made the point the Iran War is good (relatively speaking) for reinndutrialization and industries in the U.S. The input costs for most of the globe will rise significantly higher than they do in the U.S.
And no he wasn't saying it was a good thing, but pointed it out as reason for why the stock market hasn't declined that much this year. It was interesting point and I just ran across this article.
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/2034035587464761706?s=46
I disagree with two fundamental aspects.https://twitter.com/MichaelARothman/status/2034438913000165590
1. The problem with private universities like Harvard is that they get funding from the government in the first place. No one votes for private businesses like General Electric either.
2. Reagan had a far more fundamental change in the United States in that his tax policies laid the foundation for the astronomically wealthy multinationals we have now.
Obama deported more illegals than Trump. Trump’s social justice counter wars are a normal pendulum swing against abnormal aspects of liberal policies (anti-racism = normal; pro-genital mutilation in youth = abnormal).
https://twitter.com/MichaelARothman/status/2034438913000165590
That is the dumbest load of crap I have read this week. Thanks for sharing your propaganda
The problem with private universities like Harvard is that they get funding from the government in the first place. No one votes for private businesses like General Electric either.
Much of the cuts to Federal funding have been to research dollars, which historically drive innovation, and lead to marketed products that drive future economies. Penny wise now is pound foolish for the future. Many studies have shown a positive return on research investment for NIH & NSF dollars. Maybe less for "softer" research.
But for biomedical sciences, take the human genome project. Paved the way for scores of new drugs that in one generation doubled life expectancy for many cancers and helped drive development of drugs for many other diseases as well. Take monoclonal antibody technology. Purely an academic pursuit 20 years ago, now becoming standards of care. Cancer immunotherapy. Antibody-drug conjugates. Targeted protein degradation (a coming wave). We got a cure for hepatitis C in the last few years, modern direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications with a 95% cure rate after taking pills for 2 months. Prior to that, in vitro fertilization tech. mRNA. Oh wait, skip that, and ignore the cancer vaccines in development, showing promise, but unfunded in the USA
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
There's a different argument I guess for less obviously translational science. If tight economies, maybe you don't need to study the mating habits of roundworms. But by all means keep looking for cures for ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain tumors, etc.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
What do you mean they are being "de-risked"? The risks are still there; they're just being socialized.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
The problem with private universities like Harvard is that they get funding from the government in the first place. No one votes for private businesses like General Electric either.
Much of the cuts to Federal funding have been to research dollars, which historically drive innovation, and lead to marketed products that drive future economies. Penny wise now is pound foolish for the future. Many studies have shown a positive return on research investment for NIH & NSF dollars. Maybe less for "softer" research.
But for biomedical sciences, take the human genome project. Paved the way for scores of new drugs that in one generation doubled life expectancy for many cancers and helped drive development of drugs for many other diseases as well. Take monoclonal antibody technology. Purely an academic pursuit 20 years ago, now becoming standards of care. Cancer immunotherapy. Antibody-drug conjugates. Targeted protein degradation (a coming wave). We got a cure for hepatitis C in the last few years, modern direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications with a 95% cure rate after taking pills for 2 months. Prior to that, in vitro fertilization tech. mRNA. Oh wait, skip that, and ignore the cancer vaccines in development, showing promise, but unfunded in the USA
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
There's a different argument I guess for less obviously translational science. If tight economies, maybe you don't need to study the mating habits of roundworms. But by all means keep looking for cures for ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain tumors, etc.
https://twitter.com/PolitiBunny/status/2034590046704042433
Ironically, you’re making an excellent argument for Democrats keeping their social justice warriors light years away from politics.The problem with private universities like Harvard is that they get funding from the government in the first place. No one votes for private businesses like General Electric either.
Much of the cuts to Federal funding have been to research dollars, which historically drive innovation, and lead to marketed products that drive future economies. Penny wise now is pound foolish for the future. Many studies have shown a positive return on research investment for NIH & NSF dollars. Maybe less for "softer" research.
But for biomedical sciences, take the human genome project. Paved the way for scores of new drugs that in one generation doubled life expectancy for many cancers and helped drive development of drugs for many other diseases as well. Take monoclonal antibody technology. Purely an academic pursuit 20 years ago, now becoming standards of care. Cancer immunotherapy. Antibody-drug conjugates. Targeted protein degradation (a coming wave). We got a cure for hepatitis C in the last few years, modern direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications with a 95% cure rate after taking pills for 2 months. Prior to that, in vitro fertilization tech. mRNA. Oh wait, skip that, and ignore the cancer vaccines in development, showing promise, but unfunded in the USA
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
There's a different argument I guess for less obviously translational science. If tight economies, maybe you don't need to study the mating habits of roundworms. But by all means keep looking for cures for ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain tumors, etc.
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
What do you mean they are being "de-risked"? The risks are still there; they're just being socialized.
And end up costing more money and creating more waste.
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
What do you mean they are being "de-risked"? The risks are still there; they're just being socialized.
He’s a shameless shill for big pharma - they should be taking the risks. You’re exactly right, the taxpayers take the risk so the private companies can reap the rewards…
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
What do you mean they are being "de-risked"? The risks are still there; they're just being socialized.
And end up costing more money and creating more waste.
While the taxpayer who backstopped the risk never sees any financial return. That goes to the individual and institution, while taxpayers pay through the nose to take advantage of the medical research they paid for once already.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Derisking an idea is the first step. If there is some evidence that, as an example, brain cancer patients all have a gentic mutation that makes too much of a certain enzyme, a good idea MIGHT BE to block the function of that overabundant enzyme.
But that is risky, since is the overproduction of that enzyme CAUSING tumor growth, or just a byproduct? Is the idea nuts? What else doess the enzyme do,?
So an academic scientist develops a mouse model and genetically knocks out that enzyme, and looks to see what happens to tumor growth. Hey, it works, tumor growth is halted! Then chemists make a test drug to block the enzyme, and make it get to the brain. That works! Now it's derisked. Let's patent the drug, start a biotechnology company, show it works not just in mice, and a pharma partner may license it, convinced by that data that it isn't so risky that the whole idea is nuts.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Ironically, you’re making an excellent argument for Democrats keeping their social justice warriors light years away from politics.
Ideally, well-conceived research of many types would be supported, without expecting new products of technologies to directly emerge. Teaching critical thinking, hypothesis generation, experimental design, etc leads to a better educated and informed society. And you never know what new directions a young thinker might go. My first ever research project was fairly worthless but was publishable as an undergraduate in the Journal of Radiation and Environmental Research. Sure motivated me into doing other research with more tangible outcones
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Reagan had a far more fundamental change in the United States in that his tax policies laid the foundation for the astronomically wealthy multinationals we have now.
Things seemed pretty damn good after those in the 80s and 90s. The world changed dramatically with the adoption of the Internet, and then, its follow ons like mobility, AI, etc.
Much of the fiscal misalignment today comes from the Baby Boomer demographic bubble and lack of saving and tax paying by those citizens. They want to live into their 80s, but can’t afford to, so they make the country pay for them to.