What happens to NSF and NIH funding?

What happens to NSF and NIH funding?

Other urls found in this thread:

pnas.org/content/112/2/313.full.pdf
nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/
custodians.online/
scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nothing

well then idgaf

We're gonna drain the swamp
Less of this "STEM Shortage" nonsense and the artificial oversupply of qualified people/positions relative to grant funding we're dealing with

What the fuck are you talking about, you little piece of shit??! Donald Trump will LITERALLY destroy the universe. You dumbass hicks do not understand the weight of your extremely irresponsible decisions. This is why the democratic system is broken. Dictatorship would be better than letting the uneducated populous deciding on issues they are not qualified to make decisions on. Fuck you.

okay so we stop pushing STEM propaganda since there are more than enough stem majors already, I can support that. But what happens to NIH funding?

90% of people in my department actually believe this

I don't remember the exact quote but he has been quoted in the past year saying he doesn't like the NIH and thinks it's a load of crap

And with him thinking climate change is a hoax, any public agency which has research related to climate change is at risk, namely NASA, whose budget is sure to get slashed

Overall he seems pretty bad for the research community.

They go bye bye. Anti-science is about to get very very very mainstream. Enjoy having Sarah Palin in charge of science funding dumbasses.

\thread

He uses it to give Melanoma bigger tits.

That 90% of your department is right

Say bye bye to your career. Better go in to wall street or sucking cocks for a living. Suicide is also a possible choice.

>Be microbiologist specializing in public health
>God Emperor pledges to cut all government jobs except military public safety and public health
>mfw you all said it was soft science bullshit

They're the same issue
pnas.org/content/112/2/313.full.pdf
nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/

The people who hold the pursestrings are the same ones who push the STEM shortage narrative, in order to create the greatest possible oversupply of good candidates and stretch the government dollar mere inches further at the cost of many nascent careers.
Good, hardworking, talented Americans should not have to fight like dogs over table scraps. Mr Trump understands this and will do the right thing.

>starting your career in your 60's

wow things have gotten out of hand.

Gone. Both are going away.

>nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/
I clicked on this link using a virtual sandbox shoveler and independent "froggy" cyberserum care package. As expected, this is a bad virus, probably the worst I've seen since my work as a freelance nexus merc working on blackhat ops out of Tottori.

I just had to reformat my harddrive, reset the diplomatic algorithm on my CPU, defragment my secondary echo transverser, repopulate my standard paramorph contractor with null terrahertz slipstarts. and reconfigure my wireless modem transponder setup with a Bayesian inference telemetry packager.

Needless to say, do NOT click on this link! You've been warned.

Lol fuck off NIH shill

>nce there are more than enough stem majors already
Except college enrollment has been falling steadily, especially in STEM.

>As PhDs and post doctoral positions become more of a requirement, there are less young PIs
Who wood uv thunk it

probably because there are less and less jobs.

right now the system is setup that 1 PI will train multiple phd students, how is this possibly a sustainable system?

>As PhDs and post doctoral positions become more of a requirement
And what, may I ask, do you suppose is causing this?

He claimed that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese and vaccines cause autism

It isn't looking good for either of them

The requirement for
a)more specialised knowledge
b)more capable scientists

You specialize in gradschool, and if you get a postdoc that aligns with your research interests you are lucky as hell.
It has everything to do with a sustained mismatch over time between people entering and positions being created. If it was a simple matter of needing more special training, you'd see steady career progression, rather than career limbo.

>more capable scientists
Or should we remove competition in job markets just so everyone can have a job?
You fucking communist

Science works on collaboration not competition.

Just imagine if there were patents preventing you from even researching a topic.

Undergrad degrees are the equivalent of high school degrees a couple generations ago.

People graduate. There aren't enough jobs to go around right now, so they go into grad school and figure they will ride out the job market and come out being a stronger candidate. Problem is, lots of people are doing this.

Degrees proliferate and therefore are less valuable. Profs need PhD students to do their research, to get grant money, to fund more PhD students. It's a vicious cycle that does not consider the student's career prospects. It's just an assembly line.

People are doing more post-docs between graduation and acquiring a full-time job. It's not a good sign.

Not to mention scholarships and post-doc funding have basically flatlined despite rampant inflation and increase in cost-of-living.

>more people being smarter is bad!

>Science works on collaboration not competition
Tell that to all the Nobel Laureates that hide their work until they publish.

You mean entire teams of people often working concurrently with other teams from around the world in a field, and who rely on one another's past publications?

You clearly do not understand how academia works.

>remove competition in job markets just so everyone can have a job?
This is a total non sequitor. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
But mass influx of illegals willing to take your job for half your wage is an existential threat to the working class. You can choose to address that problem by enforcing our immigration laws, for example, rather than straight-up nationalizing all business. Your black-and-white strawman thinking has no place in public policy

>wants to abolish slavery
>more people achieving higher productivity for cheaper is bad!

This. It's wolfish only through poor policy and in spite of the nature of scientific progress, not because of it.
This has everything to do with the propaganda and limited funding that have turned science into a Ponzi scheme since the cold war.

Teams of people working together doesn't negate that it's highly competitive. Look at CRISPR lawsuits as recent proof

We're gonna have the best science. Our science is gonna be so great, I guarantee. You'll love it. You really will. It's gonna be so great that you'll get tired of it and ask "can't we assfuck some gradstudents or something" and I'll say "no!" and we'll make our science even better. We're never gonna stop beating Cheyna

>Look at CRISPR lawsuits
Intellectual property laws, in their current form, are outmoded, obsolete, counterproductive and dangerous custodians.online/
ref: >It's wolfish only through poor policy and in spite of the nature of scientific progress, not because of it.

>We're gonna have the best science. Our science is gonna be so great, I guarantee. You'll love it. You really will. It's gonna be so great that you'll get tired of it and ask "can't we assfuck some gradstudents or something" and I'll say "no!" and we'll make our science even better. We're never gonna stop beating Cheyna
lol'd

Winner of the suit probably gets the Nobel Prize too, faggot.
I'd shit on everyone else for that prestige.
I swear none of you are actual researchers/have have never had other labs working on the same stuff as you.

Pumping out highly educated people, often with lots of student debt, in a saturated job market is bad.

Yes, education is intrinsically good, but not everyone has to have 4+ years post-secondary school when they are working more menial jobs. Unemployed or underemployed PhD students who can't find proper jobs and start families late in life is not justified by "more smart people = good".

I am less idealistic about education now that I see other people my age floundering in the job market, often by no fault of their own.

>By no fault of their own
Entering the wrong industry is their choice. Not being as good as other candidates is no one's fault but theirs.
Once upon a time if you couldn't get work, you changed industries. People can still do that but >muh working in something you love

You're right, only the upper classes deserve to be educated

The rest of us should go back to working in the factories so the economy gets better for the upper classes

Everybody deserves to be educated.
Many people, however, don't want to be, and view degrees as merely a lock and key to economic success. You should be fully able to support your family and live comfortably by working in a factory, and Trump's trade deals will bring that back.
Shunting people who hate learning into postsecondary education by requiring it to have a secure, prosperous life is what is wrong. It's unfair to the people who'd rather not be there and it's unfair to those who actually enjoy learning.

Talk to someone who is in debt tens of thousands of dollars and unable to find work. Wait until you graduate and your peers, and possibly yourself, go through this. Your idealism will fade. But you are young and don't realize the country needs taxpayers who have at least 2 children, not childless 30-year-old professionals moving from job-to-job.

You are oversimplifying something you know little about. When you get older and develop more insight you will come to the unfortunate realization that the talented and hardworking folk are not always rewarded for their efforts.

Academia is largely a pyramid scheme, where excess grad students are trained to support the research and grant requirements of PIs, not to mention grad students are "worth more" to the university.

I've had a great academic experience and enjoy what I'm doing and where I'm going, don't get me wrong, but when you start to see the inner workings of the machine and what happens to many good, smart, motivated people in this economy, you start to see things a little differently. I.E.: what's great for me isn't great for everyone else, and post-secondary education should NOT be considered obligatory by society.

scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/

Back to the dark ages!

You're retarded if you think the only value of an education is a job.

Smarter, more informed citizens are better citizens in every aspect of their lives. Your rhetorical is exactly how we ended up int his situation in the first place.

Now even this board is going to be nothing but shitposting /pol/ raids of speudoscience worshiping racists and climate change deniers.

My only fear about Trump is his dismantling of environmental and financial regulations.

Why is it only Trump? The right wing rhetoric has been to defund the EPA and get rid of regulations for years (along with defunding other things, but I forgot what they were. Oops.)

>But you are young and don't realize the country needs taxpayers who have at least 2 children, not childless 30-year-old professionals moving from job-to-job.

You might want to back up your statements with arguments.

It's not just Trump, any of the other Republican candidates would have been just as bad policy-wise, the Republican party and platform is fucked. Trump just gets shit on because he's loud and has no tact.

>You're retarded if you think the only value of an education is a job.
You're retarded if you think everyone should devote four years of their lives going into debt for a degree they do not necessarily want, but feel obliged to obtain because it is a prerequisite for basic entry jobs.

Formal education is not the only gateway to knowledge and learning. People who do not go to university are not stupid or uneducated. It's like a Catholic saying, "only people who practice Catholicism can go to heaven".

You have confused the academic business model with an idealistic and altruistic place of learning.

Schools want students to make money. They are more than happy that undergrads are now considered requirements by most workplaces. Profs want students to conduct research to obtain grants to get more students to conduct more research to obtain more grants.

Education is great and we need people to be more aware, but keeping people enslaved in debt because they "needed" to get a degree to get a job is absurd.

>You're retarded if you think the only value of an education is a job.
Hey buddy how bout you read

There is no argument that countries require taxpayers who at least maintain the population.

>Talk to someone who is in debt tens of thousands of dollars and unable to find work. Wait until you graduate and your peers, and possibly yourself, go through this. Your idealism will fade. But you are young and don't realize the country needs taxpayers who have at least 2 children, not childless 30-year-old professionals moving from job-to-job.

You think you can go back to the 50s era where everyone worked some menial manufacturing job and could afford a house and car because everything was cheap. But you can't. America isn't a developing nation anymore. Your country is developed. Your economy now focuses on services, because this is the natural progression of things. The world cannot handle another development phase for America, there aren't enough resources to go around. Your economy shouldn't focus on growth anymore.

You need to reduce your population.

>but keeping people enslaved in debt because they "needed" to get a degree to get a job is absurd.

So waive the debt. Or charge less for education.

If the birth rate goes far below replenishment, and this goes on for several years, you end up with a much higher proportion of retirees to workers. Thus, a smaller tax base to support a larger segment of the population.
This is what's happening in Japan.

Malthus was absurd then and is absurd now

>You're retarded if you think everyone should devote 12 years of their lives going into debt for a diploma they do not necessarily want, but feel obliged to obtain because it is a prerequisite for basic entry jobs.

>you end up with a much higher proportion of retirees to workers

That's ok, because like I said, you're not looking for positive growth.

>Malthus was absurd then and is absurd now

It's basic logic. Try to deny reality all you want, moron.

I suggest you read up on a book called "The Population Bomb" and how it bombed.

>You have confused the academic business model
You mean sports entertainment?

Are you 14 or something?

This analogy you're trying to make doesn't work.
If it did, we could dismiss your point by suggesting everybody have mandatory schooling their entire lives and never take jobs
see: "$15 minimum wage? why not make it $100?" and "raise taxes? why not tax 100% of income?"

kek

>You need to reduce your population.
I hear lots and lots of people my age (30) saying this, yet most of them and their peers haven't even had their first child yet.

Overpopulation is not an issue in North America, yet we are the ones who are the most concerned with it. As a result, people don't have children or have 1-2 late in life. Then we'll have to bring in more immigrants/refugees from overpopulated countries to make up for the decline, who will proceed to have 6 children, all of which will survive and cost more, from a social welfare perspective, than if N. Americans had their 2 children.

It's a racket. We don't have children because we are concerned about overpopulation, education, fiscal responsibility and all that, meanwhile Syrians living in a literal war zone are pumping out kids like there is nothing happening.

In other words, the educated people who you want to procreate and raise the next generation are being bred out.

But hey, owning stuff is better than having a family and you gotta worry about that overpopulation.....

>You mean sports entertainment?
No, tuition.

How many people do you know age 20-35 that have kids? How many have two kids or more? Not many.

>I hear lots and lots of people my age (30) saying this, yet most of them and their peers haven't even had their first child yet.

That doesn't sound contradictory at all

>Overpopulation is not an issue in North America

It will be if you attempt to grow your economy in the way Trump proposes

>Then we'll have to bring in more immigrants/refugees from overpopulated countries

Stop that then

>But hey, owning stuff is better than having a family and you gotta worry about that overpopulation.....

You can have 1 child. But yes, owning stuff is better than having children.

>Entering the wrong industry is their choice. Not being as good as other candidates is no one's fault but theirs.

Not that user but while I don't necessarily agree with them or Trump's possible understanding of the situation, to pin the blame on these people in such a manner is incredibly bad form.

Everyone does not have access to perfect information, so they can't properly assess what is the "optimal" industry at the time to enter and when to transition. What is clear is that education and social programs at the core level lacks a coherent adaptive model.

Yes, the average person knows education is important but they do NOT KNOW what kind of education is important (especially career wise). For instance we tell people STEM is important, why it's important and where it's growth is centralized (engineering, programming, etc.) but we don't let them measure the "heartbeat" of its growth themselves.

They know very little about where the professions are going x years from now and have to work with relatively archaic information. They can't tell whether or not a field is healthy, on life support or dead. A lot of people lack that advantage even with well established internet connection because they have no one to tell them where to go and how to monitor events.

Also despite the average person living longer age discrimination is still a very real thing and a lot of professions have no problem "soft capping" after 50 years of age.

People in any serious profession already have some level required education on the job. I see no reason everyone shouldn't at least have an AA, or we could improve primary education to be on that level, but I doubt that could happen in the US because of how dumb the country is, how poorly we score in education, and how people like you dismiss education.

>minimum wage
opinion discarded. you are obvious just your average self-centered burger eating idiot who doesn't care about anything beyond the scope of their own greed.

>How many people do you know age 20-35 that have kids? How many have two kids or more? Not many.

good

>Are you 14 or something?

Are you? You don't want people to be in debt, but don't understand it's debt that made your country rich.

>People in any serious profession already have some level required education on the job.
>I see no reason everyone shouldn't at least have an AA
Because they get their job-relevant education on the job? And their employer will train them in vocational skills/knowledge better than the community college can? Fuck, why doesn't the local CC have welding courses?

>we could improve primary education to be on that level
This. I want this. K-12 needs to be far more rigorous and take better care of those with very high potential. Perhaps we could differentiate it between vocational/professional/higher ed tracks at a certain point, like in Germany.
>but I doubt that could happen in the US because of how dumb the country is
[citation needed]
"waaaaaah, my candidate lost" is not evidence
>how poorly we score in education
Citations again. We don't know what you mean until you give specific metrics, and performance is an effect and not a cause
>and how people like you dismiss education
>It's easy to be right when I don't understand the posts I reply to

>>minimum wage
>opinion discarded
>self-centered burger eating idiot who doesn't care about anything beyond the scope of their own greed.
What? I'm greedy because I reject one specific, very silly argument against a minimum wage hike?

>You can have 1 child. But yes, owning stuff is better than having children.
A true millennial.

You are just an inexperienced young man who tries to hide his misanthropy in a transparent defense mechanism and the guise of "overpopulation".

Implying automation wont replace all these "jobs" you speak of. You cant beat economics. Trump knows how to make deals but he doesnt seem to understand how a macro economy works. HURRR DURR CHINA AND MEXICANS TAKE JOBS.

Not an argument

Can Hitler be the dictator?

I can very safely say that nobody on this planet understands macroeconomics
>HURRR DURR CHINA AND MEXICANS TAKE JOBS.
This is actually true though, you should read Marx. There's a clear contradiction between the global nature of capitalism and the nation-state framework it has outgrown, or moreover, between global, free-flowing capital and local, land-locked labor. Changes in the mobility of labor change local conditions of labor, as do changes in these nation states' barriers - which are essentially emergent properties of the interests of their local bourgeoisie.
It's so heterogeneous in the first place because capitalism exists on a global scale but is implemented on the local one. Individual capitalists hold directly conflicting material interests by virtue of their relationships to this framework of nation states

The neoliberal/gloalist "homogenize everything" position is not an adequate driver of "social liberation." It is merely an ultimately self-preserving bourgeois tactical choice made in response to the crises of capitalism. Those given a drastically better lot in life by immigrating to the first world will fight tooth and nail to preserve its current order
Trump's skepticism towards this position and his embrace of nationalist/protectionist policies and goals is another tactical choice, which the bourgeoisie at large rejects at this state. It stands to treat the symptoms of these crises without addressing their causes, but that's about as good as you can ever hope from bourgeois politics.

Trump represents a concessions-driven approach to revolutionary sentiment, as did Bernie, while Hillary represented a confrontational one doused in identity politics.

Probably nothing.

>Anti-science is about to get very very very mainstream.

Liberals who claim conservatives are "anti-science" are a bunch of liberal arts and humanities majors who try to make themselves feel superior by saying that they are the party that supports science. But, their background in science consists entirely of sharing "I fucking love science" (or whatever) posts on Facebook.

>just 4 years for education
This hurts me more then it should. God I'm fucking retarded.

>But, their background in science consists entirely of sharing "I fucking love science" (or whatever) posts on Facebook.
qft

mathematics, chemistry, physics or GTFO

This. Liberals are always the ones foaming at the mouth about GMOs.
Evolution and AGW denialism are pretty distinctly conservative, though, and we have to deal with that.
Better to say both parties are anti-science in different ways

The majority of scientists do identify as democrat leaning

Also there are a lot more liberals who believe there is nothing wrong with gmos than there are conservactives who are against climate change actiin

Does people really think that you can just stop people from pursuing college education? Especially in a highly competitive market such as the american one?

You can't /thread yourself narcissistic faggot.

>Does people really think that you can just stop people from pursuing college education?
Has literally anybody ITT suggested that? No?
It's also clear you have no idea what the term "competitive market" means
You should probably go to college desu ne

comreh