94
submitted 6 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

I dont think money spent on science is necessarily a bad metric for quantifying how much a government is prioritizing science. I do agree that more money spent on science != better science. I know from my own experience in geology that there are some things that China does well and a lot that they are really behind on and there's a lot of sub-par science that comes out of China. Does that matter when science is just a numbers game in the modern context? I couldn't say

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

The Clinton era proved just spending more does not equal better science.

[-] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

What are you referring to? Im not American and Clinton was before my time

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

Clinton doubled the NIH budget in his tenure and even moved DARPA money into biomedical research. >$20B a year more spending, but it did not translate to more success in diseases research.

this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2026
94 points (99.0% liked)

Science

21039 readers
31 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS