this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
705 points (99.2% liked)

Science Memes

11004 readers
2729 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's obvious how to make it better: spend as much money on scientific progress as we do on figuring out how to blow brown people up.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I wouldn't be opposed to more funding but there would still have to be some way to decide who to fund and making a good case that one's research is worthwhile is always going to take a long time.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Maybe pay people who's only job it is is to talk to the researchers and write the proposal for them? Someone smart enough to get stuff explained to them, but with the communication skills to boil that down into something the money people can understand?

It's a pretty common position in software engineering because programmers and business people are pretty bad at communicating with each other.

[–] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Create gov science centers for each major branch of science, provide funding. Allow them to delegate within their narrower and narrower fields with loose requirements such as x-y% is salary a-b% is resources, and maybe something like each new study can get no less than $z and no More than $r.

I'm not saying this is perfect but spending more money towards it in general and allowing some branch delegation of funding would hopefully at least resolve the grant writing part and ensure salary. Though I'm not sure how one would ensure that they are being productive and not doing frivolous things on purpose. Perhaps q amount of hours a year must go to a gov decided research project and the rest is up to the researcher.

Maybe funding for a project is aquired through hours contributed to projects the gov deems with a standard for high social benefit? I.E. You help with the research on this new hydro electric tech (regardless of outcome because we feel it's an important study topic) and we pay ($p per hour spent on hydro tech) towards a study of your choice.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, it only takes a long time because there's so little to go around. Do you think defense funding takes months and years to award grants? No.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are literally decades-long proposals, initial R&D and prototyping for big defense contracts.

No, they aren't taking years to award a new contract for the paper provider, but they are for new weapons and vehicles.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah because they're so big. This guy is not asking for a grant for 2000ppl, multi-year project around nuclear fusion, it's just him and a couple students mucking around in a petri dish

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wonder what you'd might call that "figuring out" thing

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I sure wouldn't call it scientific progress, if that's what you're implying.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Science isn't just about nice stuff

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's just how the term is defined. Blame English language users, I guess

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah yes. Nice science and evil science.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah. Goes all under "science"

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Problem solved then! Everyone just needs to do killing people science in order to make a living.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you really upset that the term "science" includes even things we might personally find upsetting?

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because our (US) current priorities fuel a worldwide arms race, while real investment in basic sciences would benefit humanity and keep postdocs from starving. The entire NIH budget for everything is $47 billion, while the Department of Defense budget is $825 billion, $145 billion of which for R&D. You think we should be spending $100 billion per year more on killing people than on making people's lives better?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't know what you imagine I was saying, I was just trying to say that a lot of that is science.

[–] Dadifer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

All I'm saying is that postdocs shouldn't be living below the poverty line with a side of stop killing people.