The U.S. Is Funding Fewer Grants in Every Area of Science and Medicine | A quiet policy change means the government is making fewer bets on long-term science.
A quiet policy change means the government is making fewer bets on long-term science.
You're viewing a single thread.
While I agree this administration went too far in not funding stuff, there were A LOT of grants that were useless and frivolous.
Mostly not; they were awarded through competitive process. It's remarkably hard to get something frivolous through that.
What does happen a lot is that basic science isn't immediately impactful but has a modest chance of producing something really useful. For example the GLP-1 drugs were developed as a result of a study into gila monster venom. Nobody is going to say "gila monster venom is useful" but the basic research into how gila monsters regulate appetite turned out to be very meaningful.
Ok fair enough but how does something like that get through the competitive process then? On the surface it sounds frivolous which would mean it wouldn't be competitive?
Because the competitive process is about credibly promising to produce new knowledge, not about direct immediate application. And when you do that, something really useful is created every so often. You cant do the kind of directed study that produces immediate application without the basic knowledge of how things work. So we have had a system where the federal government funds basic knowledge creation and private enterprise does the directed work for profit when it becomes clear that it's plausible.
Could you give some examples?
The cost of some of these are insane too.
https://stacker.com/stories/business-economy/some-strangest-projects-funded-taxpayer-dollars
I personally don't understand gain of function and why we would ever do that.
There was one person that was searching for parasitic snails....for some reason.
Again, I think the pendulum swung too far for this admin however some of these grants, in my opinion, are frivolous and we could all probably agree WAY too expensive for the work that is being done.
In a different response I asked for you to provide examples, but I didn't submit that reply until after you posted this, so I'll respond here.
I looked through those articles, and most examples of a non-military scientific study had qualification from the author on the actual aim of the study and how future studies built upon the results. On the other hand, many of the military-funded studies were, in my opinion, hare-brained and ill-suited to begin with. Any study whose premise can be milled down to "how to kill more people better" is half-baked at best, and regressively dangerous at worst. Still, they produced knowledge or technology that later proved useful. Science has always been like this: the scientists who discovered nuclear fission wanted it to be a new energy source long before the worst of us chose to weaponize it.
The same applies to gain-of-function research. It can help us understand how viruses cross species barriers, as COVID-19 did from bats to humans. That potential is real and valuable, even if the risks feel frightening to non-scientists. Some work may be better paused, but the underlying scientific questions remain important.
As for cost, science has never been cheap. Researchers, equipment, specialized materials, and long-term animal care add up quickly. Maintaining a single genotyping mouse colony can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. What looks frivolous to one person may be vital to another, and many breakthroughs begin with questions that seem irrelevant at first glance.
My broader point is simple: much of science’s value lies beneath the surface, in expertise and context the public rarely sees. Too often, people dismiss what they don’t understand instead of learning more or deferring to those who do. If we’re worried about waste, the Pentagon’s inability to pass an audit despite consuming more taxpayer money than scientific research ever has, says far more about misplaced priorities than the price of experimentation and discovery.
I’m genuinely curious what you and others who share your thoughts have in mind when they say there are a lot of useless and frivolous scientific studies. Can you please share some examples, I'd like to learn more about them.
As far as I know, receiving government funding for a scientific study is a highly competitive process. Proposals are examined by qualified experts who evaluate their merit, relevance, and scientific rigor long before money is awarded.
I can understand why non-scientists might jump to the wrong conclusions, especially if they only ever see sensational headlines or oversimplified editorials. But this is exactly why it’s so important to recognize our own limits and defer to the people who actually work in these fields. It takes maturity and intellectual humility to admit when something is outside our wheelhouse.
Curious people and scientists alike know to read past the headline, because that’s where the actual knowledge lives. The studies I know of that are most often mocked as “frivolous” are examples of how misleading a surface-level reading can be:
“Drunk ants fall mostly on their right side.” This is actually an urban-myth-tier claim. There has never been a funded study or published paper demonstrating a one-sided “drunk ant” effect.
“Cocaine makes honey bees dance differently.” The bee study wasn’t about amusing scientists with drugged insects. It examined how cocaine affects reward pathways and communication. This research was relevant to understanding addiction and motivation across species, including humans.
“Do woodpeckers get headaches?” This wasn’t a joke experiment. Woodpeckers were used as a natural model to study how repeated head impacts can occur without concussive injury, producing insights into human head trauma and designing better safety gear.
Ultimately, federal funding for scientific research is rigorous and competitive. Truly frivolous projects rarely make it through the approval process. What often looks absurd to the public is, in reality, carefully designed work grounded in expertise we don’t always see or fully understand.
This is exactly why listening to experts matters, and why it's so dangerous that American policy makers are completely discounting scientific knowledge and expertise.
First of all, I would like to commend you on your calm and respectful demeanor. I comprised a few in a comment below. I am interested in information on the approval process and what goes into that. On the outside, it appears that it's just a sign off sheet and popularity contest so I'd like to educate myself on that process more.
Thank you for that. I do my best to be direct without sounding antagonistic or demeaning. It's always been hard to have a good conversation on the internet, but I feel that lemmy - for the most part - has a good community with a strong sense of equanimity. I've always loved learning new things, so I really appreciate your open-mindedness and candor about wanting to learn more. Cheers!
