再举一个例子，冠状动脉支架植入术， 本版网友今后一二十年估计会有不少会需要这个手术来延续生命 通过NIH资助的基础研究，心肌梗死的死亡率从90%下降到如今的10% The coronary artery stent, a game-changer in treating heart disease, owes its existence to a mix of innovation, clinical ingenuity, and foundational research—some of which was indeed supported by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). While the NIH didn’t directly invent or fund the development of the stent itself, its investments in cardiovascular research over decades provided critical scientific underpinnings that made stents possible and effective. Let’s trace this back. The Stent’s Origin Story Coronary stents emerged in the 1980s as an improvement over balloon angioplasty, which was pioneered by Andreas Gruentzig in 1977. Angioplasty opened clogged arteries but often led to restenosis (re-narrowing). The first coronary stent—a bare-metal mesh tube to prop arteries open—was implanted in 1986 by Jacques Puel and Ulrich Sigwart in France. This wasn’t an NIH-funded event; it was a clinical innovation built on earlier catheter and balloon technologies. However, the concept of stenting relied on understanding arterial biology and blood flow dynamics, areas where NIH-funded research had been active since the mid-20th century. NIH’s Foundational Role The NIH, particularly through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has long supported studies on atherosclerosis—the buildup of plaque in arteries that stents address. The Framingham Heart Study, launched in 1948 with NHLBI backing, established key risk factors for coronary artery disease (e.g., cholesterol, hypertension), framing the need for interventions like stents. By the 1970s and 1980s, NIH grants funded research into vascular biology, clotting mechanisms, and restenosis—issues central to stent design and success. For example: Vascular Response: NIH-funded labs, like those at the University of Washington, explored how arteries heal post-injury (e.g., after angioplasty). A 1980s study by Michael Reidy, supported by NHLBI grants, showed how smooth muscle cell proliferation drives restenosis, highlighting the need for a scaffold like a stent. Materials and Thrombosis: Research on blood-material interactions, critical for preventing stent-related clots, was backed by NIH. Work at institutions like MIT and Stanford, often NIH-funded, informed biocompatible designs. Preclinical Models: Animal studies of coronary interventions, supported by NHLBI, helped refine stent prototypes before human trials. From Bare-Metal to Drug-Eluting Stents The first stents were bare-metal, but restenosis remained a problem (10–30% of cases). The leap to drug-eluting stents (DES), which release drugs to prevent cell overgrowth, came in the early 2000s with devices like the Cypher (Cordis, 2003) and Taxus (Boston Scientific, 2004). Here, NIH influence is clearer. Basic research on cell proliferation and inflammation—key to DES efficacy—was NIH territory. For instance, studies on rapamycin (sirolimus), the drug used in Cypher, traced back to NIH-funded work on immunosuppression and cell signaling in the 1980s and 1990s. The NHLBI also supported early trials exploring drug coatings, though industry (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific) drove the engineering and pivotal clinical trials. Lives Saved and NIH’s Impact Stents have undeniably saved millions. Coronary artery disease mortality has dropped over 60% since the 1950s, with stents playing a big role since the 1990s. Today, over 1 million stent procedures occur annually in the U.S. alone, reducing acute heart attack deaths and improving quality of life. While industry funded the stents’ final development—e.g., Julio Palmaz’s patent and Cordis’s commercialization—the NIH’s $1 billion-plus annual investment in cardiovascular research (e.g., $1.7 billion from NHLBI in FY 2023) built the knowledge base. A 2011 Health Affairs study estimated that public funding, mostly NIH, contributed to 39% of the science behind new medical devices broadly, including stents. Conclusion Was the coronary stent “supported by NIH-funded research”? Not directly in its invention or initial deployment—those were clinician- and industry-led. But the NIH’s decades-long support for understanding coronary disease, vascular biology, and restenosis was indispensable. It’s less “NIH built the stent” and more “NIH made the stent inevitable.” Without that research, the device might not have worked as well or evolved into the drug-eluting versions that dominate today. It’s another case of NIH laying groundwork that industry ran with—saving millions in the process.
再举一个例子，冠状动脉支架植入术， 本版网友今后一二十年估计会有不少会需要这个手术来延续生命 通过NIH资助的基础研究，心肌梗死的死亡率从90%下降到如今的10% The coronary artery stent, a game-changer in treating heart disease, owes its existence to a mix of innovation, clinical ingenuity, and foundational research—some of which was indeed supported by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). While the NIH didn’t directly invent or fund the development of the stent itself, its investments in cardiovascular research over decades provided critical scientific underpinnings that made stents possible and effective. Let’s trace this back. The Stent’s Origin Story Coronary stents emerged in the 1980s as an improvement over balloon angioplasty, which was pioneered by Andreas Gruentzig in 1977. Angioplasty opened clogged arteries but often led to restenosis (re-narrowing). The first coronary stent—a bare-metal mesh tube to prop arteries open—was implanted in 1986 by Jacques Puel and Ulrich Sigwart in France. This wasn’t an NIH-funded event; it was a clinical innovation built on earlier catheter and balloon technologies. However, the concept of stenting relied on understanding arterial biology and blood flow dynamics, areas where NIH-funded research had been active since the mid-20th century. NIH’s Foundational Role The NIH, particularly through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has long supported studies on atherosclerosis—the buildup of plaque in arteries that stents address. The Framingham Heart Study, launched in 1948 with NHLBI backing, established key risk factors for coronary artery disease (e.g., cholesterol, hypertension), framing the need for interventions like stents. By the 1970s and 1980s, NIH grants funded research into vascular biology, clotting mechanisms, and restenosis—issues central to stent design and success. For example: Vascular Response: NIH-funded labs, like those at the University of Washington, explored how arteries heal post-injury (e.g., after angioplasty). A 1980s study by Michael Reidy, supported by NHLBI grants, showed how smooth muscle cell proliferation drives restenosis, highlighting the need for a scaffold like a stent. Materials and Thrombosis: Research on blood-material interactions, critical for preventing stent-related clots, was backed by NIH. Work at institutions like MIT and Stanford, often NIH-funded, informed biocompatible designs. Preclinical Models: Animal studies of coronary interventions, supported by NHLBI, helped refine stent prototypes before human trials. From Bare-Metal to Drug-Eluting Stents The first stents were bare-metal, but restenosis remained a problem (10–30% of cases). The leap to drug-eluting stents (DES), which release drugs to prevent cell overgrowth, came in the early 2000s with devices like the Cypher (Cordis, 2003) and Taxus (Boston Scientific, 2004). Here, NIH influence is clearer. Basic research on cell proliferation and inflammation—key to DES efficacy—was NIH territory. For instance, studies on rapamycin (sirolimus), the drug used in Cypher, traced back to NIH-funded work on immunosuppression and cell signaling in the 1980s and 1990s. The NHLBI also supported early trials exploring drug coatings, though industry (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific) drove the engineering and pivotal clinical trials. Lives Saved and NIH’s Impact Stents have undeniably saved millions. Coronary artery disease mortality has dropped over 60% since the 1950s, with stents playing a big role since the 1990s. Today, over 1 million stent procedures occur annually in the U.S. alone, reducing acute heart attack deaths and improving quality of life. While industry funded the stents’ final development—e.g., Julio Palmaz’s patent and Cordis’s commercialization—the NIH’s $1 billion-plus annual investment in cardiovascular research (e.g., $1.7 billion from NHLBI in FY 2023) built the knowledge base. A 2011 Health Affairs study estimated that public funding, mostly NIH, contributed to 39% of the science behind new medical devices broadly, including stents. Conclusion Was the coronary stent “supported by NIH-funded research”? Not directly in its invention or initial deployment—those were clinician- and industry-led. But the NIH’s decades-long support for understanding coronary disease, vascular biology, and restenosis was indispensable. It’s less “NIH built the stent” and more “NIH made the stent inevitable.” Without that research, the device might not have worked as well or evolved into the drug-eluting versions that dominate today. It’s another case of NIH laying groundwork that industry ran with—saving millions in the process. 平明寻白羽 发表于 2025-03-15 19:05
uiuc的cs 80个staff不是光support 135个教授，他们也要support2500本科生和近3000研究生。你是哪里得到的俩faculty一个小秘的结论的？ 另，你cite的那篇文章： Some schools have non-faculty to student ratios that are particularly egregious. For example three universities, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and the University of California at San Diego actually have more non-faculty employees on campus than students. It is important to note this does not include consultants and contractors, many of whom work with university admissions and marketing offices to boost enrollments. non faculty employees 包含数量巨大的postdoc和research scientist， lab technician等等。对一个R1大学，这些人的数量超过学生毫不奇怪。 不要光pull data，要看data定义了什么
再举一个例子，冠状动脉支架植入术， 本版网友今后一二十年估计会有不少会需要这个手术来延续生命 通过NIH资助的基础研究，心肌梗死的死亡率从90%下降到如今的10% The coronary artery stent, a game-changer in treating heart disease, owes its existence to a mix of innovation, clinical ingenuity, and foundational research—some of which was indeed supported by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). While the NIH didn’t directly invent or fund the development of the stent itself, its investments in cardiovascular research over decades provided critical scientific underpinnings that made stents possible and effective. Let’s trace this back. The Stent’s Origin Story Coronary stents emerged in the 1980s as an improvement over balloon angioplasty, which was pioneered by Andreas Gruentzig in 1977. Angioplasty opened clogged arteries but often led to restenosis (re-narrowing). The first coronary stent—a bare-metal mesh tube to prop arteries open—was implanted in 1986 by Jacques Puel and Ulrich Sigwart in France. This wasn’t an NIH-funded event; it was a clinical innovation built on earlier catheter and balloon technologies. However, the concept of stenting relied on understanding arterial biology and blood flow dynamics, areas where NIH-funded research had been active since the mid-20th century. NIH’s Foundational Role The NIH, particularly through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has long supported studies on atherosclerosis—the buildup of plaque in arteries that stents address. The Framingham Heart Study, launched in 1948 with NHLBI backing, established key risk factors for coronary artery disease (e.g., cholesterol, hypertension), framing the need for interventions like stents. By the 1970s and 1980s, NIH grants funded research into vascular biology, clotting mechanisms, and restenosis—issues central to stent design and success. For example: Vascular Response: NIH-funded labs, like those at the University of Washington, explored how arteries heal post-injury (e.g., after angioplasty). A 1980s study by Michael Reidy, supported by NHLBI grants, showed how smooth muscle cell proliferation drives restenosis, highlighting the need for a scaffold like a stent. Materials and Thrombosis: Research on blood-material interactions, critical for preventing stent-related clots, was backed by NIH. Work at institutions like MIT and Stanford, often NIH-funded, informed biocompatible designs. Preclinical Models: Animal studies of coronary interventions, supported by NHLBI, helped refine stent prototypes before human trials. From Bare-Metal to Drug-Eluting Stents The first stents were bare-metal, but restenosis remained a problem (10–30% of cases). The leap to drug-eluting stents (DES), which release drugs to prevent cell overgrowth, came in the early 2000s with devices like the Cypher (Cordis, 2003) and Taxus (Boston Scientific, 2004). Here, NIH influence is clearer. Basic research on cell proliferation and inflammation—key to DES efficacy—was NIH territory. For instance, studies on rapamycin (sirolimus), the drug used in Cypher, traced back to NIH-funded work on immunosuppression and cell signaling in the 1980s and 1990s. The NHLBI also supported early trials exploring drug coatings, though industry (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific) drove the engineering and pivotal clinical trials. Lives Saved and NIH’s Impact Stents have undeniably saved millions. Coronary artery disease mortality has dropped over 60% since the 1950s, with stents playing a big role since the 1990s. Today, over 1 million stent procedures occur annually in the U.S. alone, reducing acute heart attack deaths and improving quality of life. While industry funded the stents’ final development—e.g., Julio Palmaz’s patent and Cordis’s commercialization—the NIH’s $1 billion-plus annual investment in cardiovascular research (e.g., $1.7 billion from NHLBI in FY 2023) built the knowledge base. A 2011 Health Affairs study estimated that public funding, mostly NIH, contributed to 39% of the science behind new medical devices broadly, including stents. Conclusion Was the coronary stent “supported by NIH-funded research”? Not directly in its invention or initial deployment—those were clinician- and industry-led. But the NIH’s decades-long support for understanding coronary disease, vascular biology, and restenosis was indispensable. It’s less “NIH built the stent” and more “NIH made the stent inevitable.” Without that research, the device might not have worked as well or evolved into the drug-eluting versions that dominate today. It’s another case of NIH laying groundwork that industry ran with—saving millions in the process. 平明寻白羽 发表于 2025-03-15 19:05
CatFatCat 发表于 2025-03-15 19:37 uiuc的cs 80个staff不是光support 135个教授，他们也要support2500本科生和近3000研究生。你是哪里得到的俩faculty一个小秘的结论的？ 另，你cite的那篇文章： Some schools have non-faculty to student ratios that are particularly egregious. For example three universities, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and the University of California at San Diego actually have more non-faculty employees on campus than students. It is important to note this does not include consultants and contractors, many of whom work with university admissions and marketing offices to boost enrollments. non faculty employees 包含数量巨大的postdoc和research scientist， lab technician等等。对一个R1大学，这些人的数量超过学生毫不奇怪。 不要光pull data，要看data定义了什么
那斯坦福为什么不去UIUC取取经啊？现在斯坦福staff和学生的比例是0.94啊。 “Between 1996 and 2023, the number of staff, or non-teaching employees, grew at an average rate of 382 new staff per year — 950 per year since 2019. The University’s staff-to-student ratio concurrently increased from 0.42 to 0.94 staff per student, higher than 46 out of the 50 top universities as ranked by the U.S. News and World report. ” https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
cs5560 发表于 2025-03-15 21:35 那斯坦福为什么不去UIUC取取经啊？现在斯坦福staff和学生的比例是0.94啊。 “Between 1996 and 2023, the number of staff, or non-teaching employees, grew at an average rate of 382 new staff per year — 950 per year since 2019. The University’s staff-to-student ratio concurrently increased from 0.42 to 0.94 staff per student, higher than 46 out of the 50 top universities as ranked by the U.S. News and World report. ” https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
那斯坦福为什么不去UIUC取取经啊？现在斯坦福staff和学生的比例是0.94啊。 “Between 1996 and 2023, the number of staff, or non-teaching employees, grew at an average rate of 382 new staff per year — 950 per year since 2019. The University’s staff-to-student ratio concurrently increased from 0.42 to 0.94 staff per student, higher than 46 out of the 50 top universities as ranked by the U.S. News and World report. ” https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com cs5560 发表于 2025-03-15 21:35
这是因为斯坦福的本科生少，研究生多，相应地博后，试验员，科学家等职位就多，所以staff to student的比例很高。 UIUC是大公校，本科生好几万人，staff对学生的比例就要小很多。 斯坦福向UIUC取经，解决方案就是把绝大多数的研究项目砍了。但这样做，真的对美国好吗？以后斯坦福的毕业生，大概就要去清华读博了。
CatFatCat 发表于 2025-03-15 19:37 uiuc的cs 80个staff不是光support 135个教授，他们也要support2500本科生和近3000研究生。你是哪里得到的俩faculty一个小秘的结论的？ 另，你cite的那篇文章： Some schools have non-faculty to student ratios that are particularly egregious. For example three universities, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and the University of California at San Diego actually have more non-faculty employees on campus than students. It is important to note this does not include consultants and contractors, many of whom work with university admissions and marketing offices to boost enrollments. non faculty employees 包含数量巨大的postdoc和research scientist， lab technician等等。对一个R1大学，这些人的数量超过学生毫不奇怪。 不要光pull data，要看data定义了什么
135个教授，80个小秘，不是不到两个教授一个小秘是什么？UICU CS专业是有2500本科生和3000研究生，但是这些学生又不是只有CS系的小秘support，整个学校的小秘都要帮他们处理各种问题。 根据UIUC自己的统计，https://dmi.illinois.edu/cp/ 他们2024-2025年full time equivalent 雇员总共16446.61人。 他们的统计表不太容易看明白，我仔细看了一下，其中academic employee7352.93人，这7352.93人里面包括tenure system employee 2023.83人，博士后579.51人，special faculty (lecturer等等)1071.10人，academic professional （包括adminstrative professional 3668.54人（其实不应该算作academic staff），other professional 1人）3669.54人。这7352.93人里面不包括teaching assistant, research assistant, graduate assistant 3031.98人。所以按我之前的标准所有academic staff应该是 7352.93-3668.54+3031.98=6716.37人，non-academic staff是9730.04人。可见UIUC的 admin比UCLA，UCSD等少很多，但是还是比academic staff要多不少，真正的faculty和admin的比例不是2:1而是1:1.5 至于UCLA，我再发一下 non-academic早就超过了academic的两倍，而且这个比例近年还迅速拉大了。academic里面已经包括了你说的postdoc和research scientist等等，要是真不把这些人算成academic，那个比例就会是夸张的1:7甚至1：9.
平明寻白羽 发表于 2025-03-15 18:36 错了，是回报最高的投资。和我们每个人的健康和寿命息息相关。是最不该收缩的投入。 To evaluate whether NIH funding over the last half century has been "worth it," we need to consider its impact across multiple dimensions: scientific advancements, health outcomes, economic returns, and societal benefits. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been a cornerstone of biomedical research in the U.S., investing heavily in basic and applied science since its significant expansion in the mid-20th century. Let’s break this down systematically. Scale of Investment Over the past 50 years (roughly 1975 to 2025), the NIH has allocated substantial funds to research. While exact figures for this entire period require detailed historical data aggregation, we can estimate based on available trends. In recent decades, annual NIH budgets have ranged from about $10 billion in the 1990s to $47.1 billion in FY 2024, with a notable doubling from $13.6 billion in 1998 to $27.1 billion in 2003. Adjusting for inflation and extrapolating, it’s reasonable to estimate that the NIH has invested well over $1 trillion (in nominal dollars) in biomedical research over the last half century. Posts on X suggest a figure around $1.4 trillion, which aligns with this ballpark when considering steady growth and periodic boosts. Scientific and Medical Advancements The NIH has funded foundational research leading to numerous breakthroughs: Vaccines: NIH-supported work contributed to vaccines for hepatitis, HPV, and Haemophilus influenzae, saving millions of lives globally. The mRNA technology underpinning COVID-19 vaccines also traces roots to NIH-funded basic research. Therapies: Discoveries like lithium for bipolar disorder, fluoride for dental health, and gene therapies for conditions like sickle cell disease emerged from NIH-backed science. Technologies: Innovations such as MRI and cochlear implants relied heavily on NIH grants to universities for early development. Cancer and Chronic Diseases: Death rates from cancer have dropped 33% since 1991, partly due to NIH-funded advances in prevention, detection, and treatment. Cardiovascular disease mortality has also declined significantly since the 1950s, linked to studies like Framingham (started by NHLBI in 1950). These outcomes stem from the NIH’s focus on basic research—high-risk, long-term projects that private industry often avoids due to uncertain profitability. The Human Genome Project, launched in the 1990s with NIH leadership, exemplifies this, unlocking genetic insights that continue to drive medical innovation. Health Outcomes Quantitatively, NIH research correlates with improved population health. Between 1970 and 2020, U.S. life expectancy rose by over 6 years, from about 70.8 to 77.0 (pre-COVID adjustments). While many factors contribute, NIH-funded discoveries in disease prevention and treatment played a key role. The American Cancer Society credits NIH research with saving nearly 4.1 million lives from cancer between 1991 and 2021. Reductions in chronic disease burdens—like stroke and heart disease—also tie to NIH-supported interventions, enhancing quality of life and reducing disability. Economic Returns The economic argument is compelling. Studies and sentiment on X suggest that every dollar invested by the NIH generates $2.46 to $2.50 in economic activity. In FY 2023, the NIH’s $37.81 billion in extramural funding reportedly produced $92.89 billion in economic output, supporting over 412,000 jobs nationwide. Over 50 years, this multiplier effect implies trillions in economic value—potentially exceeding $3 trillion—far outpacing the initial investment. This return comes from job creation, industry growth (e.g., biotech), and reduced healthcare costs via better treatments and prevention. Critiques and Challenges Not everything is rosy. Critics argue that NIH funding has inefficiencies: bureaucratic overhead, redundant studies, or misallocated priorities. The 2024 funding dip (down $569.5 million from FY 2023) and debates over indirect cost cuts highlight concerns about sustainability and management. Some question whether private sector investment could achieve similar results with less public spending. However, the private sector’s reluctance to fund basic research—evident in its focus on applied, profit-driven projects—suggests it’s not a full substitute. Historical stagnation in NIH funding (e.g., post-2003 until 2016) also led to reduced purchasing power, potentially slowing progress. Broader Societal Value Beyond numbers, NIH research has global reach, advancing knowledge and health equity. It’s supported U.S. leadership in science, fostering a skilled workforce and innovation ecosystem. The societal cost of not funding it—delayed cures, higher disease burdens, lost economic potential—could dwarf the investment. Conclusion Was it worth it? On balance, yes. The NIH’s funding over the last half century has delivered transformative health improvements, robust economic returns, and a foundation for future progress. While not flawless, its role in tackling intractable problems—like cancer, infectious diseases, and aging—has paid off in ways that ripple through society. The $1 trillion-plus investment pales next to the multi-trillion-dollar economic and human capital gains. Cutting it now, as some propose, risks reversing these gains, especially given the proven return on investment. The data and outcomes suggest it’s not just worth it—it’s been indispensable.
你（或者AI）讲的这两个点都站不住脚。 首先美国在生物医学上的投资是全球断崖式领先的，但是总所周知美国的人均寿命却是发达国家中倒数第一，近几年还被中国超过。美国学者研究出的先进疗法和药品只能惠及极少数人。大多数人因为经济原因和美国的体制原因还没有机会用到那些先进疗法就死了或者破产了。所以NIH对美国人的健康长寿至少是没有多少帮助。 经济上说，就算AI给的数据是可靠的， “NIH’s $37.81 billion in extramural funding reportedly produced $92.89 billion in economic output, supporting over 412,000 jobs nationwide. ”只有区区900亿美元的产值，41.2万个工作岗位，可以看出这是个多么小的产业。相比之下，美国光software engineer就有440万个，是药厂的10倍有余https://springsapps.com/knowledge/how-many-software-engineers-are-there-in-2024，而美国政府对CS研究的资助远小于对生物医药的资助。 另一方面，从美国一国的利益来说，如此大方的资助生物医药也是不划算的，世界领先的药厂里面辉瑞和强生是美国的，但是拜尔，罗氏，nuo'wei'nuo'de个点都站不住脚。
首先美国在生物医学上的投资是全球断崖式领先的，但是总所周知美国的人均寿命却是发达国家中倒数第一，近几年还被中国超过。美国学者研究出的先进疗法和药品只能惠及极少数人。大多数人因为经济原因和美国的体制原因还没有机会用到那些先进疗法就死了或者破产了。所以NIH对美国人的健康长寿至少是没有多少帮助。 经济上说，就算AI给的数据是可靠的， “NIH’s $37.81 billion in extramural funding reportedly produced $92.89 billion in economic output, supporting over 412,000 jobs nationwide. ”只有区区900亿美元的产值，41.2万个工作岗位，可以看出这是个多么小的产业。相比之下，美国光software engineer就有440万个，是药厂的10倍有余https://springsapps.com/knowledge/how-many-software-engineers-are-there-in-2024，而美国政府对CS研究的资助远小于对生物医药的资助。 另一方面，从美国一国的经济利益来说，如此大方的资助生物医药也是不划算的，大药厂里面辉瑞和强生是美国的，但是拜耳，罗氏，诺和诺德不是美国的。可见断崖式领先的资助力度并不能给美国带来制药领域的垄断性地位。那美国有什么必要这么吃力不讨好呢？
不觉得科研机构有多少冗余Admins，据我所知Hopkins School of Medicine一个不很大的系也就只有4个Admin，一个主管，一个accountant，一个管人事，一个管课程。她们工作也都很有效率，有求必应，管钱的也非常细致，基本做到每一块钱花在哪里都要找到。另外还有一堆杂事，比如EPA年检，公用仪器维护之类的，都是这4个人分管。根本没有办法cut，cut一个人，那一片事情就没有人做了。辅助申请funding的Admin全SOM也就那几个人，如果cut admin绝对会影响funding申报。Hopkins博后真的赚非常少，税前5-6万美金/年，每个月扣掉各种保险403b拿到手比住家保姆还少。揣着博士学位拿那么少钱必须是真爱科研。
europasole 发表于 2025-03-16 00:05 不觉得科研机构有多少冗余Admins，据我所知Hopkins School of Medicine一个不很大的系也就只有4个Admin，一个主管，一个accountant，一个管人事，一个管课程。她们工作也都很有效率，有求必应，管钱的也非常细致，基本做到每一块钱花在哪里都要找到。另外还有一堆杂事，比如EPA年检，公用仪器维护之类的，都是这4个人分管。根本没有办法cut，cut一个人，那一片事情就没有人做了。辅助申请funding的Admin全SOM也就那几个人，如果cut admin绝对会影响funding申报。Hopkins博后真的赚非常少，税前5-6万美金/年，每个月扣掉各种保险403b拿到手比住家保姆还少。揣着博士学位拿那么少钱必须是真爱科研。
回复 187楼 europasole 的帖子 George Carlin有段独白： “现在，有一件事你们可能已经注意到了，我不会抱怨：政客。每个人都抱怨政客。每个人都说他们很差劲。那么，人们认为这些政客是从哪里来的呢？他们不是从天上掉下来的。他们不是从另一个现实中穿越而来的。他们来自美国父母和美国家庭，美国家园，美国学校，美国教堂，美国企业和美国大学，他们是由美国公民选举产生的。这是我们能做的最好的事情。这就是我们所能提供的。这就是我们的制度所产生的：垃圾进，垃圾出。如果你有自私、无知的公民，你就会得到自私、无知的领导人。任期限制不会带来任何好处；你只会得到一群全新的自私、无知的美国人。所以，也许，也许，也许，糟糕的不是政客。也许是这里其他东西很糟糕……比如，公众。是的，公众很糟糕。有人有一个很好的竞选口号：“公众糟透了。希望破灭了。” “Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”
CatFatCat 发表于 2025-03-16 00:58 回复 187楼 europasole 的帖子 George Carlin有段独白： “现在，有一件事你们可能已经注意到了，我不会抱怨：政客。每个人都抱怨政客。每个人都说他们很差劲。那么，人们认为这些政客是从哪里来的呢？他们不是从天上掉下来的。他们不是从另一个现实中穿越而来的。他们来自美国父母和美国家庭，美国家园，美国学校，美国教堂，美国企业和美国大学，他们是由美国公民选举产生的。这是我们能做的最好的事情。这就是我们所能提供的。这就是我们的制度所产生的：垃圾进，垃圾出。如果你有自私、无知的公民，你就会得到自私、无知的领导人。任期限制不会带来任何好处；你只会得到一群全新的自私、无知的美国人。所以，也许，也许，也许，糟糕的不是政客。也许是这里其他东西很糟糕……比如，公众。是的，公众很糟糕。有人有一个很好的竞选口号：“公众糟透了。希望破灭了。” “Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”
可以对电费水费对办公楼租金罚款对吧
美国的人才到了中国直接就被卷死了吧。中国现在也不需要外国人呢来撑门面了
通过NIH资助的基础研究，心肌梗死的死亡率从90%下降到如今的10%
The coronary artery stent, a game-changer in treating heart disease, owes its existence to a mix of innovation, clinical ingenuity, and foundational research—some of which was indeed supported by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). While the NIH didn’t directly invent or fund the development of the stent itself, its investments in cardiovascular research over decades provided critical scientific underpinnings that made stents possible and effective. Let’s trace this back.
The Stent’s Origin Story Coronary stents emerged in the 1980s as an improvement over balloon angioplasty, which was pioneered by Andreas Gruentzig in 1977. Angioplasty opened clogged arteries but often led to restenosis (re-narrowing). The first coronary stent—a bare-metal mesh tube to prop arteries open—was implanted in 1986 by Jacques Puel and Ulrich Sigwart in France. This wasn’t an NIH-funded event; it was a clinical innovation built on earlier catheter and balloon technologies. However, the concept of stenting relied on understanding arterial biology and blood flow dynamics, areas where NIH-funded research had been active since the mid-20th century.
NIH’s Foundational Role The NIH, particularly through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has long supported studies on atherosclerosis—the buildup of plaque in arteries that stents address. The Framingham Heart Study, launched in 1948 with NHLBI backing, established key risk factors for coronary artery disease (e.g., cholesterol, hypertension), framing the need for interventions like stents. By the 1970s and 1980s, NIH grants funded research into vascular biology, clotting mechanisms, and restenosis—issues central to stent design and success. For example: Vascular Response: NIH-funded labs, like those at the University of Washington, explored how arteries heal post-injury (e.g., after angioplasty). A 1980s study by Michael Reidy, supported by NHLBI grants, showed how smooth muscle cell proliferation drives restenosis, highlighting the need for a scaffold like a stent. Materials and Thrombosis: Research on blood-material interactions, critical for preventing stent-related clots, was backed by NIH. Work at institutions like MIT and Stanford, often NIH-funded, informed biocompatible designs. Preclinical Models: Animal studies of coronary interventions, supported by NHLBI, helped refine stent prototypes before human trials. From Bare-Metal to Drug-Eluting Stents The first stents were bare-metal, but restenosis remained a problem (10–30% of cases). The leap to drug-eluting stents (DES), which release drugs to prevent cell overgrowth, came in the early 2000s with devices like the Cypher (Cordis, 2003) and Taxus (Boston Scientific, 2004). Here, NIH influence is clearer. Basic research on cell proliferation and inflammation—key to DES efficacy—was NIH territory. For instance, studies on rapamycin (sirolimus), the drug used in Cypher, traced back to NIH-funded work on immunosuppression and cell signaling in the 1980s and 1990s. The NHLBI also supported early trials exploring drug coatings, though industry (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific) drove the engineering and pivotal clinical trials.
Lives Saved and NIH’s Impact Stents have undeniably saved millions. Coronary artery disease mortality has dropped over 60% since the 1950s, with stents playing a big role since the 1990s. Today, over 1 million stent procedures occur annually in the U.S. alone, reducing acute heart attack deaths and improving quality of life. While industry funded the stents’ final development—e.g., Julio Palmaz’s patent and Cordis’s commercialization—the NIH’s $1 billion-plus annual investment in cardiovascular research (e.g., $1.7 billion from NHLBI in FY 2023) built the knowledge base. A 2011 Health Affairs study estimated that public funding, mostly NIH, contributed to 39% of the science behind new medical devices broadly, including stents.
Conclusion Was the coronary stent “supported by NIH-funded research”? Not directly in its invention or initial deployment—those were clinician- and industry-led. But the NIH’s decades-long support for understanding coronary disease, vascular biology, and restenosis was indispensable. It’s less “NIH built the stent” and more “NIH made the stent inevitable.” Without that research, the device might not have worked as well or evolved into the drug-eluting versions that dominate today. It’s another case of NIH laying groundwork that industry ran with—saving millions in the process.
我就针对前面举的两个例子说staff太多的问题，怎么判断是不是admin太多，不能是只看数量，比例来说。 你现在是说manager太多？
和美国工业界人才断层一样
恢复起来就难了
美国这么多年医药的确领先，但并不说明没有浪费啊
砍经费，不是以后就没经费了吧，有用的还可以继续啊。
为啥一说砍，就好像美国以后再也没有科研了似的。
嗯，就像前面有人说的有关女人的，有关少数族裔的，都是判定是没用的研究，被砍掉。
美国科技算是完了 人才不会再来，还大批离开 人才断层，自己教育体制烂也养不出真人才 现在是实验室关门，过两年大学可以关门了
军事上省出一个零头给学术圈，学术圈就能蓬勃发展
有的博士后用的不是教授的funding 而且就算是教授的funding 教授也决定不了多少 因为admin 不是教授一个人的funding support的 是indirect pull together 在school level上 所以哪一个教授也决定不了 甚至都不在决策圈 不用说教授自己也快要没了
军事上一个杯子几千刀也是最近才爆出来的，既然知道了，应该会被查吧
有的博后自己申的奖学金被砍了，然后教授也没额外钱给他付，只能走人了
教授管的是direct部分，只对postdoc有hiring决定权。 小蜜的hiring跟教授完全无关，既没有招的权利，也没有解雇的资格。
trump，musk都是做生意的人，省钱会先在小钱上扣扣？
我觉得这个funding事情也侧面反映出很多职位的funding非常薄弱 不知道怎么create 出来的 怎么被批准的 这就像招个教授 学校一分钱工资都不打算出 全部工资都是soft money 有一天soft money 断了 就走人 简直难以想象 我们连招chaired position 大头也还是学校commit出 没有全靠soft money的道理 今天卡funding 今天就断粮
我觉得那个层主最好说一下自己学校的情况，光在网上看别的大学的数字，就说大学admin 太多是不够客观的。 我们这公立现在也是平均一个秘书管十五个faculty, 她们的活真得很多。但我们学校管alumni relationship 就有五六个人，她们每天就很闲。其实随便那个学校/公司，都有闲人。 要说美国最浪费，最腐败, 最需要精简的是军队，看看他们每年花多少，看他们现在减了多少。川普他们就是在找软柿子捏, 让人鄙视。
对
要小心
不要乱讲话
以后会更糟糕
真的是活久见了 军费随便省点，巨富们随便交点税，问题都解决了 非得按着底层往死里搞 教授也算是用爱发电了，那个不是好学校苦读十几年，挣得又少，图啥
医学院的教授确实惨，都是softmoney，平时是给学校创收的，学校对教授剥削也狠
uiuc的cs 80个staff不是光support 135个教授，他们也要support2500本科生和近3000研究生。你是哪里得到的俩faculty一个小秘的结论的？ 另，你cite的那篇文章： Some schools have non-faculty to student ratios that are particularly egregious. For example three universities, the California Institute of Technology, Duke University, and the University of California at San Diego actually have more non-faculty employees on campus than students. It is important to note this does not include consultants and contractors, many of whom work with university admissions and marketing offices to boost enrollments. non faculty employees 包含数量巨大的postdoc和research scientist， lab technician等等。对一个R1大学，这些人的数量超过学生毫不奇怪。 不要光pull data，要看data定义了什么
投川普的人不少没有好的保险，药要到墨西哥买，手术要到印度去做，他们享受不到美国先进的医疗水平. 记得华人上有人得了癌症，从加州到德州MD Anderson治疗，中间多次被保险公司拒保，和保险公司打交道心力交瘁，这种情况下，有再好的医疗水平都白搭
其实学校就是磨不开面子。很多大学是当地最大的雇主。可以参考musk拒付Twitter水电费房租的思路，欠着嘛。然后再参考trump大学的思路，没钱了，招生时候的承诺也不是一定要履行的嘛，甚至跟毕业生说学校没钱了要关门，想拿到毕业证就额外再交一笔赞助费。
不但选，而且要继续舔by黄川粉
在meta nvidia google几个大厂有好几个caltech stanford Berkeley在sabbatical期间出来做挂名director的教授。他们在大厂的一两年拿到的薪水大约比他们做教授十年挣的都多。而他们挂名期间的学生多少就更放养一点。毕竟大牛的精力也是有限的。这些人还愿意回大学教书，就是用爱发电。 有Stanford教授，就真的放弃了tenure，全职出去创业了。
嗯，就象国内的高考，文革时中断了十年，文革之后还是能恢复的。
前阵子一个认识的斯坦福教授就直接不干了，被大药厂挖去，给了巨多钱 这离开的时机实在是太牛了
嗯，都是看人家闲，就自己勤恳。
早知今日 何必当初！这些人里我敢说有一大半去年支持川普的选民，不过悲哀的是，这些人都是被川普欺骗的可怜人。
知道有些学校alumni relationships 挺忙的，跟校友networking 拉捐款，最重要的是和校友建立关系，帮低年级的找实习职位，帮高年级的找工作职位，期间还指导学生简历和面试。那些厉害的alumni relationships 能直接和杰出校友们要来实习工作机会推荐自己学校的学生们，还要tracking 学生们拿到offer和被拒情况，以及招人单位对面试学生的排序，以最优的match学生和职位，不浪费任何机会
左派民主党里面都是社会精英，教育程度高，关怀人文，右派共和党大都是商人红脖子和农场主，野蛮无礼，他们才不关心什么科学文化，他们只关心钱！这就是我为什么说奥巴马克林顿对留学生好的原因，因为他们是民主党，代表了这部分人包括美国大众的利益。
那斯坦福为什么不去UIUC取取经啊？现在斯坦福staff和学生的比例是0.94啊。
“Between 1996 and 2023, the number of staff, or non-teaching employees, grew at an average rate of 382 new staff per year — 950 per year since 2019. The University’s staff-to-student ratio concurrently increased from 0.42 to 0.94 staff per student, higher than 46 out of the 50 top universities as ranked by the U.S. News and World report. ” https://stanforddaily.com/2024/03/13/behind-stanfords-doubled-staff-to-student-ratio/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
大爷，non teaching employee 您不会以为就是小秘吧，维护试验设备的lab technician， 不教课纯科研的research scientist，苦哈哈的博士后，都是。R1的non teaching employee就是要比纯teaching的community college多。
中国人有这种心气和吃苦耐劳，疯狂内卷的能力，如果从80年代开始算，还是花了差不多40年的时间才慢慢赶上来，你觉得美国人有这种能力吗，美国之前牛是因为移民里的科技精英多，吃了二战的红利，当年的国民素质也高，现在本身基础教育就一塌糊涂，甚至trump解散教育部的一个理由就是基础教育那么差，没必要多花钱，现在再把高校和科研就挥刀自宫，还剩下什么？等落后再往前追？
不急，这才刚刚开始呢。文革开始的时候，几乎是全民支持，至少没人敢公开反对。
这是因为斯坦福的本科生少，研究生多，相应地博后，试验员，科学家等职位就多，所以staff to student的比例很高。
UIUC是大公校，本科生好几万人，staff对学生的比例就要小很多。
斯坦福向UIUC取经，解决方案就是把绝大多数的研究项目砍了。但这样做，真的对美国好吗？以后斯坦福的毕业生，大概就要去清华读博了。
你上过大学吗？ 小学就练flg了吧
135个教授，80个小秘，不是不到两个教授一个小秘是什么？UICU CS专业是有2500本科生和3000研究生，但是这些学生又不是只有CS系的小秘support，整个学校的小秘都要帮他们处理各种问题。
根据UIUC自己的统计，https://dmi.illinois.edu/cp/ 他们2024-2025年full time equivalent 雇员总共16446.61人。
至于UCLA，我再发一下
因为UC系统的数据能找到而且比较准确，很多学校的数据不准确，像斯坦福大学的wiki主页上https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University 显示他们的non-academic employee是academic的5倍有余，这个很可能是他们把博士后，助教算成了non-academic的原因，不值得采信。但他们的真实数据很难得到。所以我找的是比较可靠的公开数据。发现UCLA这样的大公立大学non-academic是academic的两倍多而且比例还在迅速变大
UIUC是大公校，本科生多，相应地non academic staff员工对faculty的比例就高。秘书人员，IT服务人员，大楼管理员，宿舍管理员，保洁员工，食堂员工等，对本科生来说都非常重要。
接下来几年大公校的学费肯定要涨。以前研究经费中的indirect cost补贴了本科生教育，现在这一部分只能靠学费来解决了。
八杆子打不着的逻辑，这两者本身有什么因果关系吗!
你（或者AI）讲的这两个点都站不住脚。
首先美国在生物医学上的投资是全球断崖式领先的，但是总所周知美国的人均寿命却是发达国家中倒数第一，近几年还被中国超过。美国学者研究出的先进疗法和药品只能惠及极少数人。大多数人因为经济原因和美国的体制原因还没有机会用到那些先进疗法就死了或者破产了。所以NIH对美国人的健康长寿至少是没有多少帮助。
经济上说，就算AI给的数据是可靠的， “NIH’s $37.81 billion in extramural funding reportedly produced $92.89 billion in economic output, supporting over 412,000 jobs nationwide. ”只有区区900亿美元的产值，41.2万个工作岗位，可以看出这是个多么小的产业。相比之下，美国光software engineer就有440万个，是药厂的10倍有余https://springsapps.com/knowledge/how-many-software-engineers-are-there-in-2024，而美国政府对CS研究的资助远小于对生物医药的资助。
另一方面，从美国一国的利益来说，如此大方的资助生物医药也是不划算的，世界领先的药厂里面辉瑞和强生是美国的，但是拜尔，罗氏，nuo'wei'nuo'de个点都站不住脚。
首先美国在生物医学上的投资是全球断崖式领先的，但是总所周知美国的人均寿命却是发达国家中倒数第一，近几年还被中国超过。美国学者研究出的先进疗法和药品只能惠及极少数人。大多数人因为经济原因和美国的体制原因还没有机会用到那些先进疗法就死了或者破产了。所以NIH对美国人的健康长寿至少是没有多少帮助。
经济上说，就算AI给的数据是可靠的， “NIH’s $37.81 billion in extramural funding reportedly produced $92.89 billion in economic output, supporting over 412,000 jobs nationwide. ”只有区区900亿美元的产值，41.2万个工作岗位，可以看出这是个多么小的产业。相比之下，美国光software engineer就有440万个，是药厂的10倍有余https://springsapps.com/knowledge/how-many-software-engineers-are-there-in-2024，而美国政府对CS研究的资助远小于对生物医药的资助。
另一方面，从美国一国的经济利益来说，如此大方的资助生物医药也是不划算的，大药厂里面辉瑞和强生是美国的，但是拜耳，罗氏，诺和诺德不是美国的。可见断崖式领先的资助力度并不能给美国带来制药领域的垄断性地位。那美国有什么必要这么吃力不讨好呢？
大晚上的刷贴刷笑了。您说的都对。学生们从交申请到入学到毕业，自己系里的一个support staff都不值得拥有，系里的staff只是为系里的教授服务的。学生有“整个学校的小秘帮他们处理各种问题”。可能您家里有个哆啦A梦，“整个学校的小秘”都在它口袋里。
关键这个版上还有捧臭脚的，居然还阵痛，觉得是美国再次伟大的必经过程，完全没有正常人的思维和独立思考能力。这么愿意牺牲，请牺牲自己，不要带上别人
support小秘当然要有，但是不要说得好像UIUC CS系的2500本科生和3000研究生就只靠CS系这80个小秘support一样。要看就看全校的人数。事实上UIUC总共有37140本科生，20765研究生，总共差不多6万学生，对应的 non-academic staff 9700多人，差不多是1个non-academic 对接6个学生。这算是比较合理的“充足”support
像UCLA那样48000个学生，22900个non-academic staff ，那就是non-academic多得发指了。
这是哪个学校啊那么惨
也许那天你会无家可归。
这原因太简单了，国家直接支持教育，不需要IDC来补贴教育，或者让学生付高额学费。
下面是中国的数据。 AI: 快报显示，2023年全国学前教育、义务教育、高中阶段教育、高等教育经费总投入分别为5382亿元、28427亿元、10154亿元、17640亿元，比上年分别增长4.7%、6.0%、6.2%、7.6%。 与各级教育经费投入相比，高等教育经费投入增幅最大。 “统筹推进教育、科技、人才事业发展，高等教育是一个重要抓手。14 Aug 2024
难得你这么有耐心和他辩论。
你看中国总的教育经费也只有6.4万亿人民币，差不多是8800亿美元，和美国的政府K-12教育经费8572亿美元（这不包括高等教育）总量差不多，https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics 人均远远不如美国。
要说教育投入，美国绝对是下血本的，只是效果不理想。
不管你是CS，还是Math major，学位相关事宜，只有系里的小秘会理你。这也是为什么每个系都有undergrad advisor和grad advisor。系里招生，乌泱泱的申请材料，只有系里的小秘来理。 而univ-wide 的non-academic staff，比如烧锅炉的大叔，打扫卫生间的大妈，管理食堂宿舍教学楼的……他们确实服务学生，但完全无法替代系里的advisor。 UC系统 的non-academic staff 60%是UC附属医院和医学院的。他们包括医院里不教学的医生，护士，技师，医院前台，等等。 again，不要看见data就开始义愤填膺。先分析一下。 https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2022/chapters/chapter-6.html#:~:text=This%20includes%20student%20services%20employees,1).
照你这么说，现在NIH砍掉了funding还让生物科研回归正常了？以后就不会有千老来抱怨了？
就不引战了。 教育部有对全国高校本科生教学质量评估，从各高校抽prof组成committee互相串门观摩。 版上大火，CS一票难求的某大公校在本科教学质量上垫底。然而全是自推娃，依然稳居榜首。
不觉得科研机构有多少冗余Admins，据我所知Hopkins School of Medicine一个不很大的系也就只有4个Admin，一个主管，一个accountant，一个管人事，一个管课程。她们工作也都很有效率，有求必应，管钱的也非常细致，基本做到每一块钱花在哪里都要找到。另外还有一堆杂事，比如EPA年检，公用仪器维护之类的，都是这4个人分管。根本没有办法cut，cut一个人，那一片事情就没有人做了。辅助申请funding的Admin全SOM也就那几个人，如果cut admin绝对会影响funding申报。Hopkins博后真的赚非常少，税前5-6万美金/年，每个月扣掉各种保险403b拿到手比住家保姆还少。揣着博士学位拿那么少钱必须是真爱科研。
是啊，所以说人闲不闲要看具体工作任务。我们这她们只管捐款部分，偏偏公立的学生都不爱捐款。很多年前我在一个私立，一个秘书就管几个教授，她也很忙，因为教授们写书，写文章都要她打latex. 那会儿，基础学科的老教授都是电脑盲。
这倒是，中国人太厉害了。 不过大家可以往好得地方想，普通美国人卷不动，但华人的孩子能巻，这样竞争小了，出头的机会不就多了吗？呵呵。
美国老百姓怎么没有享受到啊， 托生物医疗产业的福， 大家都得上了人造Covid， 然后又打了他们弄出来的毒疫苗
"近几十年来癌症治疗并无大的突破" -- 您是认真的么？Immunotherapy，各种靶向药，基因疗法，我这个外行都听过不少。 “老百姓看病越来越难，越来越贵” -- 保险公司的阴阳帐了解一下？告诉你抽个血花500刀，保险给你砍到300刀，保险付了200刀，你需要自付100刀。而如果你没保险自己付，可能也就100刀。这么做账是给谁看的？在东大哪个行业敢这么搞？ “这样大手笔的科研投入确实也无法持续” -- 军费每年都是trillion单位计，指头缝里漏出来的就不知道cover多少research scientist的薪水。
美国人的惨状是医疗问题还是政治问题？我们这大量高危肥胖人群不带口罩，不打疫苗，结果造成医院挤爆。要是美国医疗不先进，会死更多人。新冠特效药也是美国先有的吧。 这么多人的记忆力实在太坏了。
确实是这样。象降血糖的药，美国一盒要150-200美元，同样的药中国只要20-30人民币。
但同样的原因，现在砍医疗科研经费实际上是一种行为艺术，因为医疗费用和医疗科研经费，没什么大的关系。450亿美元，分摊到3亿人只是每人150美元。
可如果美国失去了制造业又失去了tech，退化成阿根廷一样的境地，以卖农产品和矿产油气为生，附加各种种族冲突，毒品泛滥，在美国卷出头又有什么意义呢？
通胀
哦对了住家保姆还不用付房租。从科研人员嘴里抠食吃，不但抠不出几个子儿，而且动摇了科技的国本，无论怎样都无法解释为什么要这样搞。
这几十年来生物医疗界当然有成果，艾滋病、白血病、和某些癌症比如乳腺癌病人治疗后的生存率这几十年里有了非常大的提高。举个例子，"我不是药神"的神药原型Gleevec，就是UPenn医学院的病理学家Peter Nowell和费城的福克斯·蔡斯癌症中心的一位博士生在研究病人的白细胞染色体时发现异常染色体，从而开始的全美多机构几十年合作研究，最终取得突破。Gleevec不仅对白血病有效，还对其他多种癌症都表现出了良好的疗效，已经被FDA批准用于十种不同癌症的治疗。
George Carlin有段独白： “现在，有一件事你们可能已经注意到了，我不会抱怨：政客。每个人都抱怨政客。每个人都说他们很差劲。那么，人们认为这些政客是从哪里来的呢？他们不是从天上掉下来的。他们不是从另一个现实中穿越而来的。他们来自美国父母和美国家庭，美国家园，美国学校，美国教堂，美国企业和美国大学，他们是由美国公民选举产生的。这是我们能做的最好的事情。这就是我们所能提供的。这就是我们的制度所产生的：垃圾进，垃圾出。如果你有自私、无知的公民，你就会得到自私、无知的领导人。任期限制不会带来任何好处；你只会得到一群全新的自私、无知的美国人。所以，也许，也许，也许，糟糕的不是政客。也许是这里其他东西很糟糕……比如，公众。是的，公众很糟糕。有人有一个很好的竞选口号：“公众糟透了。希望破灭了。”
“Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.”
很不幸 他说的全对。多余一半的public sucks
是的。NIH占美国gdp 0.15%，占美国医疗开销1%。
赞数据说话！
其实还是规则制度太多了点，所以造成需要的admin也多了上去