OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Texsox]

Being in the humanities this is all out of my area of expertise so pardon the questions.

 

So how many students do you think are affected by what amounts today as a two week shutdown, and how many students if this goes until the end of the year?

How did the research begin without money?

How does a month or two, or more delay in receiving the next check have such a disastrous affect for most projects?

[StrangeSox]

Time windows. You can't just do whatever research whenever you feel like it. As Balta posted before, the entire Antarctic research season is being cancelled.

[Balta1701]

Being in the humanities this is all out of my area of expertise so pardon the questions.

 

So how many students do you think are affected by what amounts today as a two week shutdown, and how many students if this goes until the end of the year?

How did the research begin without money?

How does a month or two, or more delay in receiving the next check have such a disastrous affect for most projects?

The problem with the antarctic program is that it's a one-shot deal.

 

700 scientists are scheduled to travel to U.S. bases in Antarctica this year for science. But, it takes maybe 10+ support people to prepare and operate each of those scientists because the bases are so remote.

 

I can't just go there on a whim. To pull off a field season in Antarctica, I need to start planning 2, 3 years in advance. I need to get advance data, put together satellite data, put together a research plan, develop a very large grant proposal for hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. To do this right I'm committing at least 6 months, maybe a year of work to it. This time is time I pay for based on whatever I can. Usually for a young faculty member it's time I pay for out of startup funds that the University has given me to start my lab up. Otherwise, it's basically time I'm not quite paid for.

 

That is then followed by 6 months to a year of waiting for the grant proposal review process, and another 6 months of waiting for funds to be released. So now we're talking about ~2 years of planning.

 

Then my grant is approved and the money arrives. Now I have the money to plan my expedition. I start spending some of that money to cover the time I spend planning for the trip. I spend other bits of it on the supplies I need, I spend other bits developing and testing the equipment, then I spend a very large portion of it setting up my travel and booking the resources I need at the site. (The grant money I get from the organization I spend to get there and to pay for my time on the site). Some of that money also goes to support colleagues and grad students working on the project, who may also collect data, prepare for the trip, and maybe even accompany if they're necessary and there is money.

 

Maybe 80% of the funds are spent during that year of preparation. Its like a non-refundable hotel booking and a non-refundable flight.

 

So now I've put 3 years of work into this trip and spent nearly a million dollars.

 

The antarctic bases are only open from September to March. During the Antarctic winter the conditions are too harsh so they close and a skeleton crew hunkers down. In September, I'm finished packing. I catch a series of flights down starting in October or November, flights I paid for and arranged months ago. My gear arrives with me on military-style cargo planes that land on the ice sheets.

 

I then spend a couple weeks preparing to go to the field and then finally get transported out to my field site by whatever transportation I've planned (plane, boat, something to carry across the ice, whatever). I spend maybe a couple weeks at most at the site taking my data and measurements before I have to head back. I then get back to the base and have to gather up everything I've taken, re-pack, and get off the continent before winter sets in again.

 

After that, I'm bringing back measurements, samples, data, whatever, that I can spend a year or maybe several years analyzing, likely in cooperation with other faculty members and grad students. In geology, just preparing samples will take 6 months to a year. Finally, a year, maybe more after the trip, I'm submitting papers based on it.

 

Even if you rush everything, we're talking about 4 years of a person's life relying on this trip. And the single worst point you could cut it off is the October when people are heading down.

 

At that point, the time spent putting together the grant and the trip has already >80% been spent. The money has arrived and has overwhelmingly been spent. That's when these people are getting cut off.

 

Now imagine that they're 2-3 years into a 5 year tenure process. This project has consumed maybe 1/2 or more of their research time just to get to this point. They're counting on this trip to supply the paper(s) that will drive their tenure application. The deadline is 2 years down the road. Starting from scratch is another 3+ year process. There's literally no way to make it go faster; you spend a year waiting on the grant process whether you like it or not. You've already spent years on the project. Your university is expecting you to publish or you won't get tenure. Your grad students are waiting on those samples.

 

There is no "Waiting a month" for the next check here. These people spent the money to get down there. That money is gone. It's not coming back. It's been spent. The government isn't going to double the value of the grants of the people who were cut off, that money was spent and nothing was produced.

 

If the base reopens next week, it will take weeks for the support staff to arrive just to get it back and running. Maybe a few of the people who were scheduled to arrive in December might still be able to salvage their projects, but that's it; anyone who needed time on the ice cap is screwed. Right now, we've probably already lost 80+% of the projects people were going to do because people flew down and are now being evacuated.

 

The money is spent, the time is lost, the government isn't going to just "send the next check". If you want the next check, you're going to have to reapply to the program next year, get approved again, and then head down in the 2015 season if you're lucky. And then think of a grad student who was expecting to work on those samples and be paid for by that grant - that student has no samples to work with. That student can't wait 2 extra years doing nothing until the samples actually arrive.

 

But of course, all this year's projects now have to compete with the projects that would have been funded in 2015, so now a bunch of those projects aren't funded either because that year will have 2x the normal number of good projects submitted to it.

 

The money to get there was already spent, the time was already spent, and it isn't coming back.

[Texsox]

Thank you. But out of the thousands and thousands of grad students, how many are doing research like this, and is it typical?

[Balta1701]

Thank you. But out of the thousands and thousands of grad students, how many are doing research like this, and is it typical?

700 scientists in this years program, I'd guess on average 1-1.5 grad students each on average (some lots, some more individual).

And just as a reminder, this is on top of the sequester which did the same basic thing nationwide.

[Jake]

And pretty much any other in-progress experiment that was running on federal grants had to shut down as well, nationwide. Most of these can't exactly be paused

[Balta1701]

And pretty much any other in-progress experiment that was running on federal grants had to shut down as well, nationwide. Most of these can't exactly be paused

Not exactly. If a grant has already been paid to a researcher at a university, then you have the money to keep running (and frankly, I'm not going to shut down an experiment I'm running even if I stop getting paid).

 

The things that actually shut down were things being staffed by federal employees. People working for the CDC, NASA, NIH, government labs like Oak Ridge, Sandia, Livermore, Los Alamos, those guys are the ones who had to shut down immediately and preserve what they could.

[StrangeSox]

A major health care research conference that took years to plan and arrange was screwed up when about 1/3 of the attendees and speakers had to leave because they were NIH-funded.

 

But all that matters in the sequester and the shutdown are airports and parks!

[StrangeSox]

Not exactly. If a grant has already been paid to a researcher at a university, then you have the money to keep running (and frankly, I'm not going to shut down an experiment I'm running even if I stop getting paid).

 

The things that actually shut down were things being staffed by federal employees. People working for the CDC, NASA, NIH, government labs like Oak Ridge, Sandia, Livermore, Los Alamos, those guys are the ones who had to shut down immediately and preserve what they could.

 

We're facing a work stoppage at the end of this week at Los Alamos if this thing doesn't get resolved. It's not any sort of long-term project, but it's still annoying.

 

Here's some more on the impacts of the shut down, which is really just an amplified version of the terrible sequester policies, on biomedical science.

Edited October 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll prepare to be flamed here repeatedly, but at some point, maybe it's ok that certain government programs/funding gets put on the back burner while the economy and our society in general heals from a pretty major blow in the recent past? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

[StrangeSox]

I'll prepare to be flamed here repeatedly, but at some point, maybe it's ok that certain government programs/funding gets put on the back burner while the economy and our society in general heals from a pretty major blow in the recent past? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

 

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise here.

 

 

edit: more bluntly, cutting off our own feet with respect to scientific research and technological development isn't going to help the economy or our society in general. It's going to hurt it. Especially when it's done in such a stupid manner as its being done right now.

Edited October 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

We're facing a work stoppage at the end of this week at Los Alamos if this thing doesn't get resolved. It's not any sort of long-term project, but it's still annoying.

 

Here's some more on the impacts of the shut down, which is really just an amplified version of the terrible sequester policies, on biomedical science.

Yeah, I've got a friend who works at the other NNSA facility (Sandia), and he's a few days away from being sent home. When you think about the projects that LANL and Sandia work on, it is a little frightening that they are scrambling around trying to decide who they don't need around.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise here.

 

 

edit: more bluntly, cutting off our own feet with respect to scientific research and technological development isn't going to help the economy or our society in general. It's going to hurt it. Especially when it's done in such a stupid manner as its being done right now.

 

Not every piece of scientific research or tech development funded by the government leads to some kind of economic benefit. I think that's a pretty faulty premise.

[StrangeSox]

Not every piece of scientific research or tech development funded by the government leads to some kind of economic benefit. I think that's a pretty faulty premise.

 

I didn't claim that it did. However, we are inevitably undercutting research that would improve society and the economy in the future, and we're doing it in such a stupid way that it negatively impacts society and the economy right now. We're just installing some equipment at LANL, but we're going to be kicked off site and payment for services will be stopped at the end of this week just because. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees aren't getting their paychecks that they'd spend in their local communities. Private research, investment and other work isn't getting funded. There's big ripple effects to all of this, and they're not helpful.

 

Furthermore, there's still a problem with your central premise, that cutting government research funding (or any other number of non-essential government funding, e.g. the NPS) is necessary or helpful to a society and economy still in the middle of a recovery from a substantial economic collapse.

[southsider2k5]

I'll prepare to be flamed here repeatedly, but at some point, maybe it's ok that certain government programs/funding gets put on the back burner while the economy and our society in general heals from a pretty major blow in the recent past? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

 

I think the demonstration here should scare us more for seeing that just a 15% cut in governmental operations is hitting pretty much everyone in the country. Granted part of that is done on purpose to maximize the hit, but still, I can't figure out why no one is more concerned with the entire country pretty much being utterly dependent on the government these days. We need to be asking how it happened, and what we can do to fix it.

[Jenksismyhero]

I didn't claim that it did. However, we are inevitably undercutting research that would improve society and the economy in the future, and we're doing it in such a stupid way that it negatively impacts society and the economy right now. We're just installing some equipment at LANL, but we're going to be kicked off site and payment for services will be stopped at the end of this week just because. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees aren't getting their paychecks that they'd spend in their local communities. Private research, investment and other work isn't getting funded. There's big ripple effects to all of this, and they're not helpful.

 

Furthermore, there's still a problem with your central premise, that cutting government research funding (or any other number of non-essential government funding, e.g. the NPS) is necessary or helpful to a society and economy still in the middle of a recovery from a substantial economic collapse.

 

No doubt it's stupid, I agree with you there. I just don't think the effect is going to be all that great. Projects lose funding all the time. Delays happen with construction projects or tech implementation that end up costing money. These things happen regardless of funding issues from the government and life moves on. You and I know this is all temporary. Spending cuts never stick around. Hell, the sequester cuts brought back spending levels to what, like 2 years ago?

 

My premise isn't that cutting these programs is beneficial (they may or may not be). My argument is that they're not detrimental. And i'm speaking more towards research funding, not people receiving paychecks.

[StrangeSox]

Your argument isn't supported by anything, though.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think the demonstration here should scare us more for seeing that just a 15% cut in governmental operations is hitting pretty much everyone in the country. Granted part of that is done on purpose to maximize the hit, but still, I can't figure out why no one is more concerned with the entire country pretty much being utterly dependent on the government these days. We need to be asking how it happened, and what we can do to fix it.

 

+1

 

And it happened with 60-70 years of one political party asking "what should the country be doing for me?"

[Jenksismyhero]

Your argument isn't supported by anything, though.

 

Time will tell. When society has fallen because a scientist couldn't study the mating habits of a fruit fly, you can tell me I was wrong.

[StrangeSox]

Time will tell. When society has fallen because a scientist couldn't study the mating habits of a fruit fly, you can tell me I was wrong.

 

This is great because it's a complete non-response but also demonstrates that you don't understand why scientists study fruit flies.

 

edit: and really, you're shifting your argument here. You implied that cutting this research is somehow necessary or beneficial for a society recovering from an economic collapse. You then shifted that to a statement that cutting this research isn't detrimental. They're both just silly assertions, but they are different assertions. How and why would cutting government research funding help the economy and society?

Edited October 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I think the demonstration here should scare us more for seeing that just a 15% cut in governmental operations is hitting pretty much everyone in the country. Granted part of that is done on purpose to maximize the hit, but still, I can't figure out why no one is more concerned with the entire country pretty much being utterly dependent on the government these days. We need to be asking how it happened, and what we can do to fix it.

 

Which country in the modern era has not been dependent on a functional and robust government?

[Jenksismyhero]

This is great because it's a complete non-response but also demonstrates that you don't understand why scientists study fruit flies.

 

edit: and really, you're shifting your argument here. You implied that cutting this research is somehow necessary or beneficial for a society recovering from an economic collapse. You then shifted that to a statement that cutting this research isn't detrimental. They're both just silly assertions, but they are different assertions. How and why would cutting government research funding help the economy and society?

 

I said nothing like this. I don't know where you got that from. My statement was "hey guys, maybe it's not the end of the world if we cut funding for the short term. Maybe."

[StrangeSox]

I said nothing like this. I don't know where you got that from. My statement was "hey guys, maybe it's not the end of the world if we cut funding for the short term. Maybe."

 

I'll prepare to be flamed here repeatedly, but at some point, maybe it's ok that certain government programs/funding gets put on the back burner while the economy and our society in general heals from a pretty major blow in the recent past? Yes? Maybe? Just a little?

 

This implies that cutting certain government programs/funding would, at best, not be detrimental to an economic and societal recovery. Given the context (sequester, shut down), it's a transparently bad argument; cutting funding or programs is obviously going to have a detrimental effect on society/economy. The only way it could be neutral or positive is if that money were instead shifted elsewhere (other programs, or tax cuts) and you could actually show the impacts.

 

As it is, it just looks like a shallow argument that government doesn't do anything useful so who cares if it gets cut anyway.

[Iwritecode]

A major health care research conference that took years to plan and arrange was screwed up when about 1/3 of the attendees and speakers had to leave because they were NIH-funded.

 

But all that matters in the sequester and the shutdown are airports and parks!

 

 

This is great because it's a complete non-response but also demonstrates that you don't understand why scientists study fruit flies.

 

These two posts are interesting to see together.

 

I'd say the media focuses on the parks and airports being affected because that's something most people can relate to. A majority of Americans probably have no idea why scientists study fruit flies or spend weeks in Antarctica.

 

I'll be completely honest and say that I don't know why either.

[StrangeSox]

These two posts are interesting to see together.

 

I'd say the media focuses on the parks and airports being affected because that's something most people can relate to. A majority of Americans probably have no idea why scientists study fruit flies or spend weeks in Antarctica.

 

I'll be completely honest and say that I don't know why either.

 

 

They're very useful for studying genetics. They're super-cheap to breed and maintain and have such short lifespans that you can go though many generations in a relatively short period. Nothing wrong with not knowing that, but jenks' post echoed the frequent lists of "projects with silly-sounding names proves government is wasteful" that get put out by people who sit on Congressional science committess but apparently have zero understanding or zero interest in the science they're criticizing as useless and wasteful.

http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/c...esearch-no-joke

 

The media not covering the ins and outs of scientific research is one thing, but isn't necessarily where I was going with that first criticism. Millions of the lower-middle class and working poor have been negatively impacted by the sequester and the shut down, but their stories aren't really covered.