Howard Hughes: Patron Of Science?

Medical Research Institute Is America's Second Largest Charity

(CBS)  So is the Hughes Institute encouraging investigators to take risks?

“To take risks in the sense, not just of doing something that has a low probability of succeeding, but in terms of thinking about the big problems, such as, you know, ‘How does memory work?’ and, ‘How does the brain accomplish decision-making,'" Cech says.

“It'd be wrong to pretend that I was in any way like Galileo. But it is true that the Medici Family supported investigators like Galileo, to allow them the freedom to explore things which they couldn't otherwise do,” says Melton. “And that's how I like to think of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. It allows us the freedom to explore things that we wouldn't otherwise do.”

As the Institute supports more and more explorations like Melton's, history may begin to remember Howard Hughes differently, not just as a bizarre billionaire, or just as a pilot and a playboy, but as a great, if accidental, patron of science.

---

In May, The Howard Hughes Institute announced a massive infusion of funds, $600 million, into its pool of endowments. The new money will fund 56 additional scientists working in a variety of medical fields including genetics. One question to be studied: is climate change affecting the spread of cholera and malaria.

[npr_opoganda]

This story is unbalance rhetoric, creating a demon out of the NIH, but avoiding other enterprises that could easily fund research with ever more potency than HHMI. I speak specifically of Harvard''s endowment, which exceeds 30 Billion (as compared too HHMI''s 11 Billion). One of the researchers taking grants from HHMI works at Harvard, no? Why isn''t Harvard at the forefront? (To answer, because despite it''s vast wealth, it wants more and is willing to accept it from the NIH). Harvard doesn''t need it - it has 30 billion, but prefers to use it''s wealth as political leverage as opposed to "pure" research. Why not paint the whole canvas? Why not disparage Harvard with equal enthusiasm as you rank on NIH?

[npr_opoganda]

Secondly, and lastly, at the conclusion of the story there is a blurb about HHMI giving grant money to research how "Climate Change" affects Malarial and Choleral conditions worldwide. How politically and emotionally apropos! I would suggest that HHMI also fund research to FINALLY analyze the research that went into the manifesto "Silent Spring", and let the outcome speak for itself. We all should be aware that 6,000 children die of Malaria every day in Africa. We should also be aware that DDT and many of it''s cousins can stop these deaths. We have an immediate solution; but what we need now is the courage to truly and unemotionally evaluate it''s use and decide honestly whether it is better to let children die or to rely on the lack of proven science in the benchmark "Silent Spring". HHMI is political first, scientific, second; and nothing will change my opinion of that until it balances it''s research, just like 60 minutes should balance it''s rhetoric, if it is truly non-biased.

[beehive21-2009]

Howard was an amazing pioneer, everyone loved Howard, and always will. He picked the Russians Atomic bomb off the ocean floor, no one else came close. He''s the only man ever licensed via the telephone , In Gaming. In the end, poor Howard was turned into a Zombie via drugs.

[rational_1]

Harvard doesn''''t need it - it has 30 billion, but prefers to use it''''s wealth as political leverage as opposed to "pure" research. Why not paint the whole canvas? Why not disparage Harvard with equal enthusiasm as you rank on NIH?
Posted by NPR_OPOGANDA at 10:05 AM : Jun 09, 2008

University endowments are typically used for things such as buildings (infrastructure) and retention/recruitment packages for faculty, rather than yearly research costs. NIH isn''t going to pony up $100 million for a new biology building. The biomedical researchers are basically self-employed in a sense and are expected to compete for their research dollars at NIH (and other funding agencies) rather than expecting the universities to give it to them from their endowments. I think this is appropriate since all grant applications to NIH or NSF (for example) undergo rigorous peer-review, ensuring only the best proposals get funded (~10-15% these days). This wouldn''t happen if universities gave professors access to their endowments. So yes, Harvard is obscenely wealthy... but it also has a pretty good track record of accomplishment and is arguably the best university in the world.

[npr_opoganda]

"typically used for building" NO. It is used for power acquisition. Harvard FAILS at following the spirit of those that donate. In light of the overwhelming need for wells in Africa, Harvard withholds, Harvard simply points the finger at others (the right). Harvard is an infestation of one point of view. Look at the Demography of the professors. Harvard is "arguably" the best University because it pays for the prestige, not for results. Founded as a Divinity School, Harvard now prides itself on developing the best ways to abort life and turn it into a product. Walking across the green (the mud) shows that they care very little for appearances, and looking at the broken sidewalks is more proof that they expect Cambridge to pay out, not them