I only mentioned degrees. Just because someone passed a class years ago, that doesn't mean they remember everything or are able to put that knowledge into practice.
Scaling licensing is much easier than scaling education via universities which means that price can be made cheap to avoid needing big loans.
It's possible (if not likely) that paying for this test made you more likely to die. There are two mechanisms for this:
1) You could develop cancer tomorrow, notice the symptoms, and assume it's not worth getting screened again because you were just supposedly cleared of cancer. A common logical fallacy for our human brains is that we think, "Oh, I just got a test, so it's less likely I have cancer today," which is not how probability works.
2) You could have gotten a false positive, which would have led to unnecessary additional screening. Many methods of cancer screening have some risk, whether from anesthesia, infection, or further false positives leading to unnecessary treatment.
> A common logical fallacy for our human brains is that we think, "Oh, I just got a test, so it's less likely I have cancer today," which is not how probability works.
Given my interactions with my doctors and their tests, they did seem to hold this belief, too.
In any case, the real mistake people make is failing to update their beliefs when new evidence (symptoms) appears. Rookie mistake. My doctors love to do (or rather, not do) this. Who needs differential diagnosis and re-evaluation when they can just keep the diagnosis and continue receiving a fuckton of money after you based on a secore-based system we have here?
I am not going to avoid any reasonable treatment/screen because of it. It was intended to catch asymptomatic cancer. Additional invasive screenings are voluntary and like all treatments they carry risk. I weigh all treatments based on their risks at the time.
For everyday people increased screening of all types has risks, but overall the benefits massively outweigh the risks. If I was a frail 80yo, I might see the risk profile differently.
In my career I've encountered many people who "don't want to know" about medical tests of any kind. I'm not one of those people. Minimally invasive screens early and often please.
> For everyday people increased screening of all types has risks, but overall the benefits massively outweigh the risks.
This is just not how math works, and it's why we still need doctors to order tests -- to protect people from themselves. You clearly don't know what you don't know, but you have a huge amount of confidence that you do, apparently.
There are many people, myself included, who don’t want to be patronized or “protected from ourselves” and prevented from accessing data about our bodies.
An MRI, blood test, continuous glucose monitor, etc. carry essentially no intrinsic risk. It’s ridiculous that we need prescriptions for such things.
What I do or don’t do with that data is my prerogative.
The problem is that my tax dollars and insurance dollars pay for people who make mistakes with their own health, so you don't and can never live in a bubble unless you opt out of modern medicine entirely
There has been a lot of talk the last several years about the risks of screening, but in my opinion people have taken this as an opportunity to swing in the opposite extreme. The message shouldn't be "get screened" in the same way the message shouldn't be "if you get screened you're more likely to die".
Not all screening is equal. MRIs for low-back pain often lead to diagnoses of disease followed by unnecessary surgery with high risks. This has led to a reluctancy to prescribe MRIs or other imaging. However, with something like cancer, timing is everything. Months/weeks/days matter and catching a cancer early via a broad screen can be the difference between life and death.
In the case of the galleri test, risk is low and many of the errors can be caught with a re-testing or other non-invasive screen. If my test came back positive I wouldn't be jumping straight into chemo, but would probably get a bunch of bloodwork and some imaging.
At the end of the day, I would much much much rather go through some unnecessary scans due to a false positive than miss a easy to treat cancer because I was scared of the screening risk.
Good reminder... Presumably, the lab phases were completed before 2025. In February of this year, a neuroscientist at John Hopkins said of the political spending cuts “This is simply the end.” https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/trumps-nih-budg...
Having an excess PhD level citizens is every free countries wet dream. Its bonkers that people think it is somehow a negative.
It is a recipe for innovation. Most of those people want to do things with their knowledge, not teach classes. Most go to business who use that knowledge to innovate and increase profit.
Businesses literally get an excess of highly educated workers for (almost) free, and for some reason the MBA/Tech-right class thinks its a good thing to blow up that system. Absolutely bonkers.
We've always had an excess of PhD's. They're made to purpose for university instruction or research. But there are far more PhDs than appropriate jobs:
The purpose of a PhD is not to train people for "appropriate jobs". PhD students perform a large part of academic research, and while most of it is grunt work and produces incremental results, some brilliant people end up discovering a gold nugget and carrying their field forward many times over.
Innovation is hard, most ideas do not pan out, and most people aren't made for it. It really is a number's game: to stay competitive and innovative as a country you need enough people pushing against the frontier, including taking bets that are too risky for the private sector.
The situation certainly sucks for the actual PhD holders. Go through 5-8 years of intense work and minimal pay, and the outcome is maybe a 10% chance of getting the job you want?
It's unsustainable. I got my PhD 20 years ago, but I would certainly advise my children to avoid it.
You're assuming all PhD's want to become a professor tho. Plenty of people go to graduate school as a mechanism to increase their prospects outside of academia. Or even if they do want to become a professor, they hedge with other roles that require/benefit from the degree.
Professors have told me it doesn’t matter which administration is in - they just need to rebrand their project to meet funding requirements. Isn’t that a scary thought? We have no visibility and they are skilled enough to transform into any form.
1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants.
2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people.
3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.
Points (1) and (3) appear to contradict each-other, AFAICT. Surely if you made researchers "waste" less time on the grant process, that would reduce the public's ability to supervise and intervene on what get's funded in an informed way? Much to most of the grant procedures researchers have to follow consist precisely in generating metrics, documentation, and other material meant to demonstrate to a skeptical public where the money is going.
You can trust professionals to do their jobs as they see fit and write them a check, or you can make them "waste" time proving to you they're doing the job you want them to do. You can't have low-trust and low-effort grant administration.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.
>1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants.
There are all kinds of scientists, some do the research, some do the writing, some do the grantsmanship. Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. It takes understanding an communication skills to convince a panel of peer-experts that your ideas are good enough to give millions of dollars to.
> 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people.
There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step, including opportunity for public commentary.
Just because you personally don't know it exists, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
>3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.
Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented. If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did and how they spent that money.
Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.
> Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.
I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.
> Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part.
Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work!
And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic job placement and promotion.
> There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step,
Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.
> If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did
Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.
Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career. Unless I attend a specialized conference I won’t hear about the latter, except in a form crafted for public reception. That’s the one that gets grants.
> Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented.
There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.
> yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.
>Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work.
Grants are hard, not because of admin/paperwork, but because coming up with a novel idea is hard and convincing others to fund it is harder.
The people leading the grants are the ones creating and guiding the ideas. They set the agenda.
A tech CEO doesn't spend their days coding minor bug fixes, in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work. They are leaders, who are occupied getting funding and setting the direction.
>Did you miss the comment we are replying to? The existing oversight is ineffective. It’s just a hoop for the professor to jump through.
It's not ineffective though, and an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.
>Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.
You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.
>There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.
Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.
>Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career.
Wrong. Every PI I know does the stuff they like, and they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.
>I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.
You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".
>yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.
>Name calling.
Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.
Yes, we are in agreement. That's why promoters are so valuable.
> in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work.
This large workforce of Phd's protecting the time of the PI also represents a massive allocation of young intelligent talent, and that's part of my concern.
> an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.
It's difficult to talk about demand for required credentials. A large percentage is foreigners securing visas to work in the US.
> You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.
> Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.
I think researchers put a great deal of care into public reporting. And I think they use their intellect to construct a story conducive to their careers. Who doesn't?
I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. TTheir sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?
> Every PI I know does the stuff they like
I don't doubt they are passionate and driven. I'm saying something different. When you are in the thick of establishing yourself you have to care more about what system cares about (this is maybe your situation?), and modern competition makes this all encompassing. But the book they write in sabbatical tends to look different than their official title.
> they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.
How would we falsify this statement?
> You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".
PhD to software engineer is a common career path.
> Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.
Name calling doesn't sound intellectual to me. I choose not to reciprocate.
EDIT: to focus on my personal beliefs and not yours.
>I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. TTheir sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?
Yes, I would say that represents a gap between a public who want to see a science factory in which not one single blueberry muffin is ever wasted on an unworthy grad-student's wasteful seminar, and the actual reality of how science works. The problem is that going, "aha, gotcha, you were HIDING these ILLICIT SEMINARS on SPECULATIVE WORK!" doesn't educate the public on how science really works and also doesn't make the seminars unnecessary. If you eliminate all the scientific processes that don't conform to an uninformed popular image of white-collar "efficiency" (eg: Office Space), you won't have any good scientists left, because they'll fuck off to private-sector jobs where you don't have to justify a blueberry muffin to a hostile Senate subcommittee.
(For anyone wondering if I'm hungry or something, in January 2025 my lab's parent university forbade us from providing lunch during lab meetings because they were informed that the incoming Administration was going to start looking for efficiencies in scientific grant funding.)
I think our impasse is for some reason you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system. I just don't understand where you are coming from. Maybe that's true sometimes, but most all PIs I have worked with are not gaming the system. They are just working on a decades-long line of inquiry.
>I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. Their sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?
Their grant is public record. Their oversight during that grant is public record. Their regulatory approvals are public record. Their publications are public record.
"Basically finished" is not finished. It is not finished unless it has been published. Your statement is like saying "its wrong for a baker to buy an oven if he already has the flour and sugar. The cake is basically finished. He is just putting future costs into this current cake".
Most grant applications include prior work, current work, and future work. A program officer will make site visits and assess current work and upcoming work. Funding of a grant is not "do X thing and publish, end of project and money:. It is the pursuit of an idea. If task 1 is "basically finished" the PO will push for publication of that and moving on to the next aim.
In many cases having an aim "basically finished" is a good thing. It shows that prior work is successful and future work can produce similar success. Most grants have multiple aims and several sub-aims. If one aim is finished, they move on to the next. If all the aims are complete, the grant usually indicates next steps. The PI and PO will have discussed the next steps long before they are carried out.
If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for. Not all research can be speculative. Not at research can be mainstream. It is a mix, based on opportunity and expertise.
This is grants 101. Please, again, I'm not lecturing you on software development, because it is not my expertise. Please understand scientific funding before lecturing me about it.
>Name calling doesn't sound intellectual to me. I choose not to reciprocate.
Its not name calling to call out your anti-intellectualism. You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.
>Yes American science as a family of organizations deserves scrutiny and critiques. Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good.
They deserve scrutiny and critique from an informed point of view on what science can accomplish for the public, that is, what science can do for the absolute public good. "This doesn't work like I thought it did!" is not necessarily, in and of itself, an absolute public bad. It is, unfortunately, a cost of doing business in employing specialized labor to do specialized work.
Driving a truck doesn't work how the broad public thinks it does, either.
> My claim is that there is a gap between how science is done and how it is presented to the public.
There is a gap between how software is written and how it is used by the public.
Clearly computers are flawed and need a complete rework.
>Please do share opinions about software. We have no professional organization. People argue with ideas.
Software is a illuminati scam perpetrated by bitter typesetters forced to get funding in a system they don't believe in. Anyone who says otherwise is in on it.
>Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good.
Are they flawless, no. Have they done more public good than any organization in history (or at least top 3)? yes.
And your response is to poo-poo the whole system because you had a bad time in your PhD. Sad.
> Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.
All oversight is a hoop to jump through in a low-trust principal-agent system. Adding oversight bureaucracy partially helps in aligning the scientists to the public interests (after all, if they're working on something totally disconnected from funding goals, they won't get funded) but can never really increase public trust in the scientists or the grant-agency bureaucrats.
Most 'misfit research' is funded by the government through broad training grants or broad departmental level support. Parts of those grants get used to fund early career researchers and students. Most often it is funding mainstream science but sometimes it is used just to keep these people on board. So it isn't about funding any one weird thing, but instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills. Even when supported by specific grants, PI will use that money to let students / fellows explore more broadly.
The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke.
I have found that many areas of human knowledge are massively disorganized. Everything is also siloed; knowledge that could easily apply to other domains is hidden by things like specialized terminology.
I think it is because science is systematic, or step-by-step, and not systemic - lacking a "whole system" point of view. Both perspectives are needed to understand a reality made of systems.
anything that is unlikely to produce papers. anything that is unpalatable to the science status quo (so you could produce papers but you'll get extremely critical reviewers or be relegated to low tier journals). research in any field in which you yourself are not established but you have good reason to believe you can make a mark
> The idea that VCs or DAOs would give a penny for R&D is a sick joke.
Why? The funding required for more fundamental research is significantly lower. The rewards are also significantly higher. Let's be real, academic-like research is usually incredibly cheap.
And if we're looking at industry, it's laughable how much vaporware has received over the past few decades. Remember the Rabbit R1 that got over $30m in VC funding? Or the Humane pin which got over $200m and ended up being acquired for over $100m? How many billions has Magic Leap received? Did Theranos not raise well over a billion? Didn't Segway get over $100m back in 2001?! Or go look at any hype craze for VR, cryptocurrencies, or the current AI.
I'm sorry, you act like there isn't a massively high rate of failure in industry and that these VCs are making much more intelligent funding decisions. But we routinely see companies like Rabbit or Theranos get funded. Companies who no reasonable expert in their respective fields could conclude is anything short of obvious fraud.
I'm not saying there aren't companies and ideas that aren't worth the risks, but I think you don't realize how much your beliefs are based on survivorship bias. This type of investing is inherently high-risk high-reward. Investors, founders, and fanboys are routinely wrong about the level of impact and value something will have even if it is successful and not fraudulent.
The fact of the matter is that we tend to fund hype and charisma. Last I checked, these weren't the primary skills of technological innovators. Last I checked, the stereotype was in the exact opposite direction... Do you really think this is a more successful path?
> instead giving people the freedom to explore ideas and develop skills
This is essentially all you can fund at these stages. Truth is, no one knows the future.
reply