(Occam's razor beats Hanlon's razor)
The damage done is deep and cuts to the bone.
> Pharma does not fund research [that does not pay back]
Fortunately we have public research. Public and private research are totally different beasts in nature. Most of the science done in the planet is public (and underfunded or free), and can explore where pharma does not dare to enter.
Ironically, most MAGA are on the group with higher risk to die for lack of the public healthcare research that they still refuse to fund. They put their lives and hopes on the private research, unaware that most of them will not be able to afford it.
It's definitely true that public research is underfunded. It would also need better leadership for more funding to matter.
Who cares about people that trust research because it has "public" or "private" label?
Don't move the goalposts. I said affordability, not trust.
People that don't "trust" science, will simply miss the benefits of trusting science. Period.
And yes, some will die for refusing to wear a mask, or will drink bleach, and 106000 people will die each year for refusing to take the measles vaccine. Very sad.
The rest of us will keep with our lives.
Sorry if it sounds too harsh, but this people actively supported to destroy the lives of thousands of researchers. Those retired scientists will not return at the last minute to save them from the crisis caused by their poor choices. We have too much urgent problems to solve, and life is too short.
This people finally failed the test and is (emphatically) NOT scientists fault. They were given a million chances.
So since the US lost the lead in Medical Research, time to end Obamacare by destroying funding and firing federal workers that are involved with the nation's health.
It is a significant emotional drain to keep watch of the state of things, but I can't look away.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-26-03490
Would’ve been nice to see a few quotes. Come on, Ars!
There are at least 3 sources to this article.
1 is the proximate opinion piece that you’ve linked to.
There’s also a link to a letter signed by 30 lawmakers and excerpts from that latter.
Then there’s a link to previous Ars coverage which discusses a different study altogether.
(2) You might be correct that Ars quoting Senators might be a “source”? I think it’s just more muddying, and, in the spirit of my complaint, certainly doesn’t count as original journalism.
I stand by my point that this Ars article is at best overly lightly under researched, and at worst a bit bollocks.
And the younger scientists ? They are activity looking abroad for work with support of Countries in Europe, Canada and even China. They will never come back because they will be unable to trust the US Federal Gov.
as for the researchers trying to stay in the good graces of the political machine, we don't need them. we survived for millennia without them. they can adapt. this reminds me of the french physics establishment that for decades rejected quantum mechanics because it did not come from france. they'll be ok. don't worry about the stupidities of researchers.
The publication of that article and letter are events that have happened, which this journalist is reporting on. Without such reporting, most people would not be aware of these events.
What additional research do you think would be appropriate? Do you think journalists should decline to report on events that are happening if they haven't done deep enough background research?