Derek Thompson

China would force us to do all these things that we're choosing to do for ourselves. So we're essentially signing our own article of surrender against China, against the world, and frankly, against ourselves, because at the end of the day, it kind of doesn't matter who comes up with the next breakthrough drug in cancer. If Americans can use it, they benefit from it.

China would force us to do all these things that we're choosing to do for ourselves. So we're essentially signing our own article of surrender against China, against the world, and frankly, against ourselves, because at the end of the day, it kind of doesn't matter who comes up with the next breakthrough drug in cancer. If Americans can use it, they benefit from it.

China would force us to do all these things that we're choosing to do for ourselves. So we're essentially signing our own article of surrender against China, against the world, and frankly, against ourselves, because at the end of the day, it kind of doesn't matter who comes up with the next breakthrough drug in cancer. If Americans can use it, they benefit from it.

But if you cut cancer research by 50%, you're taking away half your bets. on the biggest breakthrough in cancer. So I think this is truly one of the most fundamentally inexplicable policies we're seeing today with a gauntlet of inexplicable policies. I think it just goes to show the sadness, the depressing fact that if you make hating your opposition

But if you cut cancer research by 50%, you're taking away half your bets. on the biggest breakthrough in cancer. So I think this is truly one of the most fundamentally inexplicable policies we're seeing today with a gauntlet of inexplicable policies. I think it just goes to show the sadness, the depressing fact that if you make hating your opposition

But if you cut cancer research by 50%, you're taking away half your bets. on the biggest breakthrough in cancer. So I think this is truly one of the most fundamentally inexplicable policies we're seeing today with a gauntlet of inexplicable policies. I think it just goes to show the sadness, the depressing fact that if you make hating your opposition

the core of your political identity as hating libs and progressives is so clearly the core of mega-conservatism, you're going to cut off your nose to spite your face. And the NIH is just an unbelievably important and cherished institution. And we're essentially destroying it for the purpose of owning the libs. That makes absolutely no sense to me. And it's a crisis.

the core of your political identity as hating libs and progressives is so clearly the core of mega-conservatism, you're going to cut off your nose to spite your face. And the NIH is just an unbelievably important and cherished institution. And we're essentially destroying it for the purpose of owning the libs. That makes absolutely no sense to me. And it's a crisis.

the core of your political identity as hating libs and progressives is so clearly the core of mega-conservatism, you're going to cut off your nose to spite your face. And the NIH is just an unbelievably important and cherished institution. And we're essentially destroying it for the purpose of owning the libs. That makes absolutely no sense to me. And it's a crisis.

And I think it could unfortunately turn out to be a tragedy because the cost is not just to projects that are going on right now. If you cut NIH by 50%, you're interrupting the NIH-funded careers of tens of thousands of scientists who could be the Nobel Prize-winning geniuses of the 2030s. We just won't know if we don't invest in their education today.

And I think it could unfortunately turn out to be a tragedy because the cost is not just to projects that are going on right now. If you cut NIH by 50%, you're interrupting the NIH-funded careers of tens of thousands of scientists who could be the Nobel Prize-winning geniuses of the 2030s. We just won't know if we don't invest in their education today.

And I think it could unfortunately turn out to be a tragedy because the cost is not just to projects that are going on right now. If you cut NIH by 50%, you're interrupting the NIH-funded careers of tens of thousands of scientists who could be the Nobel Prize-winning geniuses of the 2030s. We just won't know if we don't invest in their education today.

Yeah, yeah, great question. You know, to me... The story that really shows not only the cruelty but also the ineptitude of these cuts is that in mid-April, it was reported by Science Journal and the New York Times that the NIH was going to cut by some extraordinary number, 70% to 80%, the longest and oldest longitudinal study of women's health. I believe it's called the Women's Health Initiative.

Yeah, yeah, great question. You know, to me... The story that really shows not only the cruelty but also the ineptitude of these cuts is that in mid-April, it was reported by Science Journal and the New York Times that the NIH was going to cut by some extraordinary number, 70% to 80%, the longest and oldest longitudinal study of women's health. I believe it's called the Women's Health Initiative.

Yeah, yeah, great question. You know, to me... The story that really shows not only the cruelty but also the ineptitude of these cuts is that in mid-April, it was reported by Science Journal and the New York Times that the NIH was going to cut by some extraordinary number, 70% to 80%, the longest and oldest longitudinal study of women's health. I believe it's called the Women's Health Initiative.

This is the longest and largest study of women's health. We were just going to destroy it, right? Maybe because it had like a gender term in the title or something. So, science reaches out to the Department of Health and Human Services, and they say, we're going to look into it.

This is the longest and largest study of women's health. We were just going to destroy it, right? Maybe because it had like a gender term in the title or something. So, science reaches out to the Department of Health and Human Services, and they say, we're going to look into it.

This is the longest and largest study of women's health. We were just going to destroy it, right? Maybe because it had like a gender term in the title or something. So, science reaches out to the Department of Health and Human Services, and they say, we're going to look into it.

And 72 hours later, so embarrassed by the fact that for no seeming good reason, they've attacked women's health, HHS backtracks. Okay, so far, so good, you could say. The media served as a watchdog and saved this all-powerful program.

And 72 hours later, so embarrassed by the fact that for no seeming good reason, they've attacked women's health, HHS backtracks. Okay, so far, so good, you could say. The media served as a watchdog and saved this all-powerful program.