Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Three Americans win Nobel Prize in Medicine for work in deciphering intracellular trafficking. Quick, let's cut their funding so they'll be even more motivated   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, nobel prize in medicine, medications, Karolinska Institutet, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Cell Biology, Southwestern Medical Center, cysts, American citizenship  
•       •       •

763 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Oct 2013 at 1:48 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-07 12:55:55 PM  
They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.
 
2013-10-07 01:06:14 PM  
Trafficking? Sounds illegal. Send their asses to Gitmo.
 
2013-10-07 01:50:06 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.


I hope you're joking.

Anyways, let's keep exploring how matter organizes itself!
 
2013-10-07 01:57:39 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.


$1.25 million divided three ways is ~400 grand. That wouldn't fund one of their labs for 6 months even.
 
2013-10-07 02:00:18 PM  
Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!
 
2013-10-07 02:10:56 PM  

theorellior: Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!


I know you're saying that jokingly and all, but hearing someone say "trickle down" and "Science" in the same breath makes me want to choke a moron.
 
2013-10-07 02:14:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.


Dear Backwards Short-Sighted Cretin,

The correct response is: "Three Americans just won the Nobel Prize after 30+ years of incredibly challenging work.  Let's funnel more resources to them so they can continue making these important discoveries."

Sincerely,
America
 
2013-10-07 02:14:58 PM  

Smoking GNU: theorellior: Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!

I know you're saying that jokingly and all, but hearing someone say "trickle down" and "Science" in the same breath makes me want to choke a moron.


There's one at the top of the thread if you still need one.
 
2013-10-07 02:19:58 PM  

chimp_ninja: Smoking GNU: theorellior: Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!

I know you're saying that jokingly and all, but hearing someone say "trickle down" and "Science" in the same breath makes me want to choke a moron.

There's one at the top of the thread if you still need one.


He's a troll, not a moron. He just does it for attention. Like a yappy dog trying to get it's masters attention, if only for a second.
 
2013-10-07 02:22:06 PM  
"Three Americans win Nobel Prize in Medicine for work in deciphering intracellular trafficking. Quick, let's cut their funding so they'll be even more motivated"

theorellior: Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!


Did I accidentally go into the politics tab?

Seriously, fellas, the constant, unending drumbeat of Progrrrrrrrrrrrresive talking points actually drives everyone but idiots away from your positions. Reading you guys is the equivalent of being tied to a chair with eyelids cut off and watching looped Cal Worthington used car commercials.

Give it a fark.i.n.g. rest, already.
 
2013-10-07 02:24:11 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.

I hope you're joking.

Anyways, let's keep exploring how matter organizes itself!


THIS. Significant life extension within 25 years; immortality in 50.
 
2013-10-07 02:25:48 PM  

Thirty: Quantum Apostrophe: The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.

I hope you're joking.

Anyways, let's keep exploring how matter organizes itself!

THIS. Significant life extension within 25 years; immortality in 50.


You say that like it's a good thing. Look at the state of the planet since we added 30-40 years on the average lifespan.
 
2013-10-07 02:26:30 PM  

Thirty: Quantum Apostrophe: The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.

I hope you're joking.

Anyways, let's keep exploring how matter organizes itself!

THIS. Significant life extension within 25 years; immortality in 50.


Weeelllllll, let's not get carried away here.
 
2013-10-07 02:33:57 PM  

Smoking GNU: You say that like it's a good thing. Look at the state of the planet since we added 30-40 years on the average lifespan.


Yes, birth rates have declined in western societies, and we live better than before. And did anyone ask if it was a good idea to vaccinate children and use indoor plumbing in the early 20th century? Basic hygiene, medicine and health knowledge did a lot to increase our life expectancy, I don't see anyone shunning these in the name of the planet.

Like people always say, you first.
 
2013-10-07 02:52:57 PM  

Thirty: Seriously, fellas, the constant, unending drumbeat of Progrrrrrrrrrrrresive talking points actually drives everyone but idiots away from your positions. Reading you guys is the equivalent of being tied to a chair with eyelids cut off and watching looped Cal Worthington used car commercials.

Give it a fark.i.n.g. rest, already.


Not too long after Pearl Harbor, there was one guy called into a radio station at one point complaining, "Aren't you getting anything besides that war stuff?"
 
2013-10-07 03:11:02 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.


Wait a minute. Those front-lawn croquet courts aren't going to build themselves.
 
2013-10-07 03:27:53 PM  

Thirty: Seriously, fellas, the constant, unending drumbeat of Progrrrrrrrrrrrresive talking points actually drives everyone but idiots away from your positions.


Funding science is now an evil Progrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresive thing? Good to know. Thanks for the update. And the extra rs. You guys are doing the Lord's work... literally.
 
2013-10-07 03:34:48 PM  

Thirty: "Three Americans win Nobel Prize in Medicine for work in deciphering intracellular trafficking. Quick, let's cut their funding so they'll be even more motivated"

theorellior: Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!

Did I accidentally go into the politics tab?

Seriously, fellas, the constant, unending drumbeat of Progrrrrrrrrrrrresive talking points actually drives everyone but idiots away from your positions. Reading you guys is the equivalent of being tied to a chair with eyelids cut off and watching looped Cal Worthington used car commercials.

Give it a fark.i.n.g. rest, already.


Maybe they wouldn't have to mention how science funding wasn't under assault if it wasn't actually under assault. This stupid sequester, and shutdown have especially been harmful to such funding. There is no excuse for it, science is a very small investment that pays off hugely. Our entire civilization as we know it has been built upon science, your computer, the internet, electricity, your phone, etc etc etc. Its idiotic that its under attack by short sighted politicians at all.
 
2013-10-07 03:41:25 PM  
theorellior:
Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!

The actual version of this is "corporate tax breaks for R&D will benefit the broader scientific community".

The reality is of course that no company wants to fund basic research that doesn't directly produce a new gizmo or drug.  And no company has any interest in publishing research results either in a timely fashion, or if those results are contrary to their immediate benefit.
 
2013-10-07 04:08:54 PM  

bbfreak: Maybe they wouldn't have to mention how science funding wasn't under assault if it wasn't actually under assault. This stupid sequester, and shutdown have especially been harmful to such funding. There is no excuse for it, science is a very small investment that pays off hugely. Our entire civilization as we know it has been built upon science, your computer, the internet, electricity, your phone, etc etc etc. Its idiotic that its under attack by short sighted politicians at all.


I think educational institutions have been amassing enough of a fortune for the past 20 years to fund their own studies.
 
2013-10-07 04:22:51 PM  

Thirty: "Three Americans win Nobel Prize in Medicine for work in deciphering intracellular trafficking. Quick, let's cut their funding so they'll be even more motivated"

theorellior: Fortunately, giving their grant money to more-deserving wealthy people will allow more research to trickle down. It's science!

Did I accidentally go into the politics tab?

Seriously, fellas, the constant, unending drumbeat of Progrrrrrrrrrrrresive talking points actually drives everyone but idiots away from your positions. Reading you guys is the equivalent of being tied to a chair with eyelids cut off and watching looped Cal Worthington used car commercials.

Give it a fark.i.n.g. rest, already.


Cuts in science funding are progressive talking points? As an investigator on multiple studies through NCI which had funding cut already during the sequestration, I can guarantee that the cuts in medical research are happening. If these men are funded through the NIH or NSF (which they almost assuredly are in some part), they are at risk of cuts too. But you go ahead and keep herping in derpville, moron.
 
2013-10-07 04:26:02 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.

$1.25 million divided three ways is ~400 grand. That wouldn't fund one of their labs for 6 months even.


It could pay a post-doc's salary for ten years.

Sadly.
 
2013-10-07 04:28:24 PM  

No Such Agency: The reality is of course that no company wants to fund basic research that doesn't directly produce a new gizmo or drug. And no company has any interest in publishing research results either in a timely fashion, or if those results are contrary to their immediate benefit.


Yup.  One of the oft-ignored benefits of Government-sponsored fundamental research grants is that you accept the funding with the understanding that you are to share the results with the community.  Program Managers at NSF (and the like) are essentially 'graded' on the number and quality of publications that result from their funding.  If you obstruct and sit on data, good luck with the 'past performance' criterion on your next submission.

But when you take a research contract from a for-profit company, often one of the first steps is an extensive NDA and an explanation of their process for disclosing data.  (Spoiler alert: You won't be disclosing anything important.)
 
2013-10-07 04:38:39 PM  

NetOwl: TofuTheAlmighty: The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.

$1.25 million divided three ways is ~400 grand. That wouldn't fund one of their labs for 6 months even.

It could pay a post-doc's salary for ten years.  Sadly.


Salary, yes, if we're talking about a university.  (Government labs pay $60K+ for postdocs, depending on field.  Private labs pay more, or just hire them straight up.)  But it couldn't support a post-doc for nearly that long.

The university and department take a cut for overhead (cost of the building, utilities, journal subscriptions, etc.).  Postdocs get at least some level of medical/dental insurance.  Now throw in payroll taxes.  And then there's basic lab supplies (tools, chemicals, safety/cleanup gear, etc.) and capital equipment (that project probably needs a fancy new machine to happen... even if you don't buy something new, that postdoc is depreciating existing equipment through use).

At a minimum, you'd budget closer to $100K/postdoc/year unless you were an all-theory shop, and the cost can be a lot higher in hardware-intensive fields.  A lot of high-end scientific equipment costs six figures per box.

Science often costs big money.  It's just that it pays off even bigger.
 
2013-10-07 05:24:25 PM  
chimp_ninja:

The university and department take a cut for overhead

That's not entirely accurate.  They don't take a cut of the grant money.  They receive additional funds on top of the grant that is awarded.  The percentage received by the institution is determined by federal audits - e.g. $1,000,000 grant = $1,000,000 for the principal investigator and $520,000 for the university (52% overhead rate).  Not all overhead money goes directly to the university.  It gets funneled and pilfered before it gets into the hands of the people that actually spend it.
 
2013-10-07 06:36:39 PM  

NetOwl: It could pay a post-doc's salary for ten years.


was about to post "you forgot fringe, travel, and overhead -> 5 years." then I saw that chimp_ninja
handled that. Not to mention that these postdocs need a lab to work in, and quite often (at least
in my case) a functioning accelerator facility that is producing data for them to analyze.

which brings me to one of my favorite jokes (my students don't love it so much, but it cracks me up).

A graduate student, postdoc, and a professor are walking through a park on their way to lunch. One
of them finds an old lamp, picks it up, and rubs the outside. A genie pops out in a startling flash
of smoke and light. The genie says
"I only grant three wishes, so I will give each one of you one wish."

The graduate student says "Me first! I want to be on a speedboat in the Keys with two supermodels
by my side!"

*poof*... The graduate student disappears.

The postdoc says "Me next! I want to be on a beach in Hawaii, with a cold beer in my hand and a
hot volleyball player by my side!"

*poof*... The postdoc disappears.

The genie then turns to the professor, who says "I want those two back in the lab after lunch"
 
2013-10-07 07:17:58 PM  

ihatebuttsex: That's not entirely accurate.


well, that such expeditures for overhead etc exist does get considered in the end- i.e. there's been
times we've carefully negotiated special rates from my university for reduced overhead (generally
for "equipment" - DOE keyword) in order to reduce the bottom line to the funding agency for
major projects. These have certainly helped these projects get funded, especially considering that
some funding agencies have limits set on the intensity of review and amount of project oversight
required depending on the total amount of the grant... i.e. for the DOE (and oversimplifying), there's
a threshold at ~1.5 M$, and another at 5 M$, and depending on which tier one is sitting in, the
review, funding and oversight processes can be quite different... So there are certainly advantages
to finding ways to make a 1.7M$ project work for 1.4-ish M$ via local allowances by the
participating institutions, and these allowances typically involve overhead...  cheers
 
2013-10-07 08:11:07 PM  

MugzyBrown: I think educational institutions have been amassing enough of a fortune for the past 20 years to fund their own studies.


Well I'll just stop writing grants then! MugzyBrown thinks that there's plenty of money so that's all the evidence I need. But in all seriousness, many top research institutions approach $1B a year in research expenditures. There is just no way in hell a university could cover that expense and maintain the facilities and student body that attracts that level of research in the first place. Also, I'm quite sure that most universities do not have a "fortune" amassed...
 
kth
2013-10-07 09:35:34 PM  
I broke my usual rule about not arguing on the internet. It was about funding of science. Some jackass from high school posted on one of our other classmate's feed about how funding for science is unconstitutional (she's an anthropologist and was concerned about losing her funding). So I posted where it says in the constitution that we should fund science and the useful arts for patents, and that Congress should make laws to further that goal that it deems necessary and proper. He complained that he is opposed to some types of research, so we shouldn't fund any.

Of course he works for Koch Industries. Science is bad y'all.
 
2013-10-07 11:12:55 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.


BUT GOVMINT SHUTDOWN!

I don't know why I maintain an account here. The vast majority of farkers are full blown retards.
 
2013-10-08 12:48:19 AM  
2 of the 3 recipients are funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which is a private organization and completely independent of government money.  In fact they forbid the researchers they support from seeking outside funding.

So subby, and pretty much everyone else here are just grinding ideological axes with no relevance to how these researchers actually finance their science.  Except for that guy at Yale; they have like their own money fountain or tree or something who even knows.
 
2013-10-08 09:44:45 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.


Besides , government, being a force for evil, never did anything for science. All science comes from independent free market entrepreneurs, like Hank Rearden, and John Galt, who are real people to me.
 
2013-10-08 09:46:36 AM  

utahraptor2: The Stealth Hippopotamus: They just won the Nobel Prize, they have all the funding they will need.

BUT GOVMINT SHUTDOWN!

I don't know why I maintain an account here.


Because you're an asshole. Any more questions?
i18.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report