We killed it decades ago with an academic science culture that promotes grantsmanship and politicking for advancement over good science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
I’d want to compare grant funding and sources pre and post, as well as the diversity of institutions receiving funding, etc. my hypothesis would be that in order to build up institutions across the country politicians did try to steer grants to regional institutions, etc but it’s still a ton more money. (But I am not an academic)
If you're barely making ends meet, can barely afford gas, and hear that $390,000 just went to some scientists to stick plastic dinosaur tails on chickens to study walking dynamics, with zero practical applications for the knowledge gained, you're angry. Also this example actually happened, it's not hyperbole.
Again, if you are someone who can barely afford gas and hear about this... you don't care about strict principles, you just want to set those in power on fire. You're also not going to be easily convinced the government cares about spending your tax dollars wisely, or that all of this planning and research and science is worth it.
"What kind of IDIOT wants to WASTE valuable TAXPAYER MONEY on gila monster venom research" - man currently on a GLP-1.
Super easy!
"We shouldn't be funding all this frivolous stuff!"
"Okay, how would you figure out what to fund?"
"We could assemble a panel of experts in the field, who have proven their merit by doing impactful research, and have them decide ultimately based on the merits of each proposal, the people who proposed it, the institutions backing them, the likelihood of success, whether they're worthy of funding. We should also make them explain as part of the proposal exactly how this will benefit not just their research area but also the broader community and world. Finally, we should meticulously track how they spend their money to make sure there's no funny business, and only give continued support to researchers who have proven they spend it wisely and their research has impact."
(If people don't understand, this is currently how it's done)
This is not accurate. There is the first gatekeeper which is program managers and junior program managers which have to gloss over your project and pick you. They (especially the juniors) don't necessarily have a the sophistication to judge your project and so are easily swayed by hot topics or reaching claims of national security/health applications.
Grants get awarded to people in the habit of telling little white lies about what their research is good for, then its people who are awarded grants that get promoted, and then those are the people who are reviewing projects, so being dishonest becomes cultural. Disastrous for science.
so, you should really recalibrate being taken in by just-so stories of basic science being SUPER important.
the earlier habener results that actually got us to glp-1s via anglerfish pancreas would have been similarly derided. substitute that in if it helps.
Your rebuttal is that GLP was a highly desirable target for a long time before we stumbled upon a way to hit it... and this is evidence that the "stumbling upon a way to hit it" was not a super critical and super fortunate event...?
> How much did gila monsters buy? Maybe a year or two?
Why'd you put "a year or two?" here and not "a decade or two?" or "a century or two?" Do you have reason to believe it was a year or two away, sans Gila monster? If so, can you provide your reasoning? Per your own point, GLP was a desirable target for a long time without successful hits. We have plenty of targets that are desirable for decades without figuring out a way to actually drug them.
The funny thing about that is the controversial “impact statements” that are part of grant funding are supposed to be the part where you explain how your research matters to the broad community. But it’s become so political the only thing you can feel safe writing is “we will help people learn about science” because “we’ll start an after school program for disadvantaged youth to learn about science” is too DEI for some folks.