> BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.
They know that their own public statements are not trustworthy (they are peddling weird bullshit for profit in their private lives, after all).
They got themselves elected and so now you don’t trust the government.
Mission accomplished.
It's a good thing Benjamin Franklin gave up on electricity, we would've never been able to contain it safely.
It's a good thing Watts gave up the steam engine, it never would've put out as much power as a horse.
Were Shockley, Franklin, or Watts funded by the US government? To the tune of half a billion dollars?
That's not a rhetorical question - I don't know to what extent their work received grants. But I think you need to connect those particular dots to effectively make the kind of comparison you're making.
The implication of your post (sort of) is that work on mRNA vaccination development either needs to be funded by the government or it'll be given up on. If it's the kind of breakthrough that it likely is (and already has been, really) I doubt that's really the case. It's just unfortunate for Americans and the world that the work will likely be done elsewhere, perhaps more slowly, and perhaps (?) with less public (rather than for-profit) interest.
do you understand long-term survival and the necessity of planning for future generations, or are you just looking for the equivalent of this quarter's shareholder returns when it comes to advancing the species?
To address your query on long-term planning for the species versus short-term gains, consider the role of tax dollars allocated through NSF grants to universities. These grants primarily support basic research and graduate education in fields like chemistry and biotechnology, which inherently trains the next generation of skilled workers for industry. For instance, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) provides stipends and tuition support to outstanding graduate students pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in STEM.
Similarly, the NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program funds interdisciplinary training for graduate students, often in areas such as chemical ecology or bio-inspired technologies, equipping them with advanced skills through hands-on research and stipends of at least 12 months.
NSF accounts for approximately 25% of federal support for basic research at U.S. colleges and universities, much of which involves training students who subsequently enter the workforce.
Most of these NSF-supported graduates are hired by multinational corporations in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and chemical manufacturing—entities like Pfizer, Moderna, or Dow Chemical, which are among the largest in history.
Once in industry, these professionals conduct proprietary research behind closed doors to protect intellectual property and competitive advantages. The resulting products, novel drugs or biotechnological therapies, are frequently priced at astronomical levels, often rendering them unaffordable without insurance subsidies or government interventions. This raises serious questions about the equity of public investment: taxpayers fund the foundational training and basic discoveries, yet the downstream benefits accrue disproportionately to private shareholders through high-margin sales.
In essence, while scientific progress indeed demands years of dedication, the current system subsidizes corporate profits via public education of the workforce.
there may be ethical concerns, but (as i'm tired of explaining to people like you) the answer isn't "burn the entire system down". you're a "researcher" (who ostensibly engages in work requiring strong logical reasoning) so this comment is genuinely baffling. so you don't believe that scientific progress and the advancement of our species can occur because a percentage of NSF grantees go on to work for private companies? do you believe this system can be reformed, or are the ethical concerns enough for you to support defunding all scientific research? what do you think about your peers who publish articles like this [1]?
"This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that I've seen in my 50 years in this business," says Michael Osterholm, who runs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. "It is baseless, and we will pay a tremendous price in terms of illnesses and deaths. I'm extremely worried about it."
personally, i think your concerns are totally valid and should be addressed. but how are you coming into a thread to defend the defunding of public scientific research in light of the quote above? do you believe that the loss of human life is worth it?
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/06/nx...
Second, on NSF funding: the NSF supports a broad spectrum of research, but not all areas yield equivalent advancements. It's inaccurate to conflate progress in one domain (e.g., math, computer science) with others, or to assume all funded work inherently advances humanity. Consider a hypothetical -- if an executive order allocated $10 million from the NSF for alchemy studies, chemistry departments nationwide would see professors submitting tailored grant proposals, positioning their expertise as ideal for such investigations. This reflects the grant-driven nature of academia, where tenure and career progression incentivize alignment with available funding, regardless of intrinsic merit. Academics, like any professionals, are not immune to societal pressures such as over-credentialing and the need to secure resources.
Third, on reform versus defunding: I am open to reforming the system to address ethical concerns, such as the subsidization of corporate profits through public training of industrial workers. However, the academic structure has insulated itself over decades through entrenched rules and policies, making meaningful change challenging. If you propose reform, could you outline the first three concrete steps grounded in existing mechanisms to initiate it? Vague aspirations often falter when confronted with reality, such as university governance and federal grant protocols.
Finally, on the value of NSF-funded research: your assumption that this funding directly prevents loss of life lacks empirical support. We should critically evaluate whether specific allocations are worthwhile. Are you open to the possibility that some are not? If so, what evidence would persuade you otherwise? Defunding ineffective or misaligned programs isn't about "burning the system down" but about prioritizing resources for genuine long-term societal benefit.
I've addressed your questions.
Since you rather argue in bad faith than peruse the truth, it's reasonable to conclude you do not have a rebuttal, nor answer to my question re: realistic steps for reform.
The defense falls apart on several fronts:
The ChatGPT Accusation Has Merit: The previous comment reads like AI output - overly formal structure ("First, regarding logical fallacies... Second, on NSF funding... Third, on reform..."), buzzword-heavy language, and the telltale pattern of systematically addressing each point with academic jargon. The Osterholm example is oddly specific yet potentially fabricated - claiming he said vaccines would take "years" on Joe Rogan in March 2020, when early pandemic expert predictions were more nuanced.
Bad Faith Projection: Accusing text0404 of "bad faith" while dodging the core issue. Text0404 raised a straightforward concern: defunding research during public health crises could cost lives. Infamouscow responded with academic theorizing about grant structures rather than addressing this practical concern.
False Burden Shifting: Demanding "three concrete reform steps" is a deflection tactic. The burden isn't on text0404 to solve systemic problems before questioning whether cutting health research funding is wise. This is like demanding someone propose complete healthcare reform before they can object to shutting down hospitals.
Missing the Forest: Infamouscow gets lost in academic critique while ignoring the immediate context - HHS winding down mRNA vaccine development amid ongoing health challenges. The philosophical points about NSF funding structures are irrelevant to whether this specific decision serves public health.
The accusation of AI use appears warranted based on writing patterns, and the defensive response confirms evasion of the substantive issue.
Citations please.