View source for Jamesgmartin.center/2025/04/how-to-judge-a-basic-research-proposal

{{page/link/v4}}
* '''source''': [[source::James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal]]
* '''author''': [[author::John Staddon]]
==Notes==
The following quotes have been edited for grammar, punctuation, and clarity.

Observations from JB:
<blockquote>
...most of [this article] seems to rely on logic like "government can't be trusted, therefore this other thing can".  I’m not sure the apples are better than the oranges. If the argument is for triangulating proposals and looking beyond usual approval sources, I'm good with that, but this all sort of feels like it's just trying to hijack it all away from people that we have known to [be trustworthy] in the past. The GOP never saw a pile of money it didn't want to try and get its hands on.

I may have missed it, but I'm not seeing anything about the role of big Pharma in funding research. I don't doubt that, for instance, there's way more interest in finding expensive meds than cures.
</blockquote>

Observations from "GM", someone whose job involves managing grants for clinical trials:
<blockquote>
[The article is] definitely not complete nonsense. There are issues with how science is funded &ndash; but anyone who thinks a billionaire doesn't "trust science" when they can literally call up CEOs they party with to get a connection for a clinical trial for their diagnosis is delusional. (This actually happened to one of the former CEOs at our company and he uses it as a talking point for how entitled people are to think that's appropriate.) ''(JB adds: The same people who jump on bandwagons about Fauci and not vaccinating [but who] also vaccinate their own children.)''

The main issues with how science is funded is that you have really great scientists who have to depend on grant money to fund their valuable research.

But also when you talk about large pharma research: it's heavily regulated (for a good reason) and results-driven.
</blockquote>
Note that the regulation is essential for maintaining the results-driven orientation; without regulation, pharma companies would tend to seek greater profits by selling snake-oil and raising prices in ways that would make many effective medicines inaccessible (or even less accessible than they are now) to most of the public. cf Martin Shkreli. GM notes further:
<blockquote>
You might have someone who really thinks a certain treatment is valid, like [[RFK Jr]] and vitamin A for measles &ndash; that ''doesn't'' make it safe or valid. When people start injecting their "values" into science, that's a '''no'''.
</blockquote>

On another note, GM adds:
<blockquote>
As for the articles commentary on the quality of the scientist: he’s gonna be really mad when he finds out mediocre white men don’t stay in the lab. They get an MBA in addition to their PhD and move into management. They aren’t there for “knowledge”.
</blockquote>

Discussing Trump's effects on all this, JB noted that many of GM's clients have been kicked out of their clinical trials because the funding was pulled as part of the [[Trump-Vance administration]]'s slashing of funding for science (along with many other things).

GM adds:
<blockquote>
Meanwhile, my team has worked insane hours to unfuck things with every country he's pissed off to make sure no one's trial meds are held in customs because of the rapid changes to import/export policy.
''Every time'' he tweets or speaks about a country, there are things in the background that dramatically affect healthcare, [that] no one realizes. 

Import export licensure is expensive and time consuming for medical supplies, when you are setting up a trial and countries that have never required specific licensure before suddenly change their mind, it’s a nightmare. For countries that ''didn't'' previously hate us, like Canada, we were considered a non-resident importer and didn't have to do insane amounts of permitting. That's about to change.
</blockquote>