Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/04/2025 11:23:35 AM PDT by karpov
President Trump continues to ramp up the pressure on Harvard: The university has lost $2.7 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the president is now attempting to bar Harvard from enrolling international students.
Harvard is, of course, not alone in these forfeitures: The NIH has terminated over 400 grants to Columbia University, while Cornell University has received 75 stop-work orders from the Department of Defense even as the federal administration has frozen $1.7 billion destined for Brown, Northwestern, and Princeton Universities, as well as the University of Pennsylvania. But Harvard has attracted the most attention, both from the general public and from the administration, because it has most resisted the president’s measures. Whereas Columbia, for example, has sought to accommodate the administration’s demands, Harvard has defied them.
By nearly universal consent, the federal government’s cuts to the universities’ research budgets portend disaster, and the national commentary is unanimous in suggesting that the threatened cutbacks to U.S. university science will damage Americans’ health and economic wellbeing. Here, however, I argue that, if the administration will only introduce its cuts in a measured way, the consequences will be wholly beneficial.
The most important fact in science policy is that the United Kingdom led the world through the first industrial revolution in the absence of significant government money for research. By contrast, the French and German governments were then funding their nations’ research capaciously, yet their GDPs per capita failed to converge on the UK’s. Government funding for research is thus neither necessary nor sufficient for economic progress.
The country that did converge on the UK—and in 1890 overtake it—was the U.S., whose government also did not fund research significantly.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Unless it’s a contract for something the US Gov’t actually needs, all of this funding should be canceled. Funding research, beneficial or not, is not a part of the gov’t’s constitutional authority.
“…the threatened cutbacks to U.S. university science will damage Americans’ health”
Yes, millions will die!
Why would you fund people who hate you?
Ye corpse-wagon drovers will singe their mournefull songes in ev'ry street and alley: sende oot yer deade! sende oot yer deade!
When the government funds research, it is often funding propaganda and slanted results — but the propaganda may not be sought by the government (sometimes it is) but may instead be bad information being fed to the government to divert policy in a way that is useful to a third party. Bureaucrats often don’t care — they’re just moving money from one pocket to another and the results are “whatever”.
When a corporation funds research, it wants solid results and will take steps to make sure that it is spending money wisely.
Let corporations fund Harvard. Taxpayers should not fund Harvard.
Harvard and Columbia are as worthless as the U.N. Third Worlder Treehouse. All they care about is the hatred of America and Americans. Now the Euro Peon “leaders” are beggin Joe Pedo the Retard to come back. They’re all broke and need somebody to run their countries for them.
I know folks at MIT and U.Penn whose NSF grants on materials research, astrophysics, computer security, etc... are completely untouched.
Maybe Trump is only targeting grants that deal with race-marxism, DEI, LGBTQ studies, etc...
Just a thought....
There is actually no reason for the Trump administration being nice to these institutions. They are implacable political enemies.
Beat them with a 2x4 until they get the message.
As Margaret Thatcher said many years ago, “Socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money”
New York has been the Financial Capital of America for many, many decades.
Just wait until Wall Street moves to greener pastures.
Wall Street is the home for Stock, Bond, and Commodity Trading. That made sense in past days when ‘open outcry’ in the trading pits set the price for a stock, bond, or commodity.
Fast forward to today and 95% or more of stock, bond, and commodity trading in done online.
It will be no big deal for Wall Street to move the trading computers to greener pastures where capitalism is appreciated.
On the other hand, I have done basic research in native plant ecology on my own nickel. For a university, it would be fairly expensive because of the time it takes supporting very laborious work with little prospect of economic return. That does not mean substantial economic benefits can't be derived, quite the contrary. That paradox results from the political control derived from a grant funded operation as coupled with the leverage corporate interests have exerted over regulatory agencies.
oops—posted on wrong thread
no tax on overtime
let China fund them, they are going to steal the results either way
The government of California thought Hollywood would never leave.
When the financial industry leaves Wall Street behind, it'll be cataclysmic. The entire revenue of the entertainment industry in Los Angeles isn't even a rounding error, compared to the revenue generated by the capital markets in NYC.
Exactly right. Government research is very self-serving.
1. University researchers want to keep the gravy flowing to fund their PhD students.
2. The government managers want to keep the gravy flowing because that is their livelihood.
Nobody looks at the results critically nor is there any objective measure for success nor is there ever an end-date. It just keeps going and going and going.
A boss of mine once called it “annuity research” and “hobby research.” There is no accountability to produce useful results.
Which is why we'll have to analyze data from China or Russia if we want to be accurate regarding "Climate Change".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.