• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harvard’s Endowment

Napoleon said:
Of the two, manufacturing Barbie dolls is the only thing that has produced tangible results. There is no cure for cancer. The best humanity can do is improve on treatment to buy time.
Click to expand...
What does "buying for time" actually mean to you? I assume it means that scientists continue cancer research and expand the data on cancer until, one day, there is a cure. Don't you think that's what 'buying time' means? Cancer research encompasses a wide range of different sciences, such as how cancer develops. Studies on genetic factors, environment, diagnostic tools, prevention, treatment, etc.
Each discipline of cancer research involves several specialized fields within medicine. There's oncology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology. It takes many scientists, from other research institutions like Harvard, to specifically research one area.
The following statement is just one example of how ignorant and ill-informed the people in Trump's administration are, who are cutting thousands of grants from Harvard.

Doctor Jeremy Faust, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at Harvard Medical School;

"Thousands of grants are being cut from Harvard, and they are not being thought-out before they're cut. One of the grants was a study of how we hear, and how to look into the inner ear. There are these little neurotransmitters in the inner ear that play a crucial role in inner ear function, and those transmitters help us hear for our whole lives. The reason this grant got flagged right away is because of the word 'neurotransmitter because it has the word 'trans' in it. Another document got flagged because scientists at Harvard were talking about transferring all the years documents on their cancer epidemiology to the 'cloud', in order for the multi-decade endeavor in cancer research to continue. Same thing. The effort was flagged because of the word 'trans'. They have been taking a chainsaw to this."
 
HumblePi said:
What does "buying for time" actually mean to you? I assume it means that scientists continue cancer research and expand the data on cancer until, one day, there is a cure. Don't you think that's what 'buying time' means?
Click to expand...
No. What buying time means is that all modern medicine can do for a cancer patient is provide a relatively brief extension of life until the cancer becomes resistant to treatment or there is otherwise a resurgence. There will never be a cure for cancer. It is one of nature’s mechanisms to prevent immortality. It is ironic that the price of immortal cells is death.
 
Napoleon said:
No. What buying time means is that all modern medicine can do for a cancer patient is provide a relatively brief extension of life until the cancer becomes resistant to treatment or there is otherwise a resurgence. There will never be a cure for cancer. It is one of nature’s mechanisms to prevent immortality. It is ironic that the price of immortal cells is death.
Click to expand...
When you find yourself in a hole the first step is to stop digging.
 
Napoleon said:
No. What buying time means is that all modern medicine can do for a cancer patient is provide a relatively brief extension of life until the cancer becomes resistant to treatment or there is otherwise a resurgence. There will never be a cure for cancer. It is one of nature’s mechanisms to prevent immortality. It is ironic that the price of immortal cells is death.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree again. There was a time that people thought there would not be a cure for measles, polio, smallpox or even tuberculosis. Look at where we've come with HIV treatments compared to where we were in 1984. HIV hasn't been 'cured' but thanks to scientists like Dr. Fauci, it's treatable and people with HIV that are taking one of the new drugs like Biktarvy, are living normal lives, and their decease is completely undetectable in their lab work. Many years passed since the first case of smallpox was discovered around 3000 BC. Smallpox remains were found on the mummies of Egyptian pharaohs, such as Ramses V, who died in 1157 BC. Thanks to the success of vaccination, smallpox was eradicated, and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have happened since 1977.

If mankind survives the next decade or so, a cure for cancer will be found. It may be in 10 years, 50 or 100 years. But cancer is another disease that will be cured. By that time, we'll have fought dozens of lethal viruses. That's why medical research is so vital to the entire world and should not be defunded by the government. It should be monitored, of course, and superfluous or stale programs ended.
 
Napoleon said:
Of the two, manufacturing Barbie dolls is the only thing that has produced tangible results. There is no cure for cancer. The best humanity can do is improve on treatment to buy time.
Click to expand...
This is so ****ing stupid that I cannot form a reply.
 
Napoleon said:
No. What buying time means is that all modern medicine can do for a cancer patient is provide a relatively brief extension of life until the cancer becomes resistant to treatment or there is otherwise a resurgence. There will never be a cure for cancer. It is one of nature’s mechanisms to prevent immortality. It is ironic that the price of immortal cells is death.
Click to expand...
Aging is “nature’s mechanism to prevent immortality.”
 
Napoleon said:
I think the right question to ask is: If Harvard doesn’t find research to be worthy of funding from its own endowment then why should the public pay for it?
Click to expand...
Mind blowing posts.
 
Rexedgar said:
I don’t understand something here.
Endowment is defined as :Endowments may generally be described as assets (usually cash accounts that are invested in equities or bonds, or other investment vehicles) set aside so that the original assets (known as the “corpus”) grow over time as a result of income earned from interest on the underlying invested funds.

Harvard is reported to have over 50 billion in endowments. What effect will pulling 3 billion in Federal funds have on that size egg? Invested prudently, that money will last as long as there is money.
Click to expand...
To answer you question properly:

1-The Trump Administration has targeted specific colleges and universities in regards to specific their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs-he has also at time stated he targets them because they are pro Hamas, anti-semitic, or "left wing";

2-in April Trump ordered federal officials to send a letter to Harvard demanding nt it do away with dei hiring practices of employees and entrance admissions policy for students;

3-Harvard refused and so now Trump has said he wilkl cut $2.2 billion in multi-year federal grants, $2.7 million in Department of Homeland Security grants and $1 billion in federal funding for health research;

4-Trump has also ordered Harvard can not take in foreign students;

5-Trump has also made many statements accusing Harvard of having a “lack of commitment” to “national values and priorities” .

To specifically answer your question with the above context in mind, in theory Harvard can survive without the grants Trump is threatening to cut. Trump will have his order to stop international students or the criteria for admissions of any students struck down. In regards to refusing grants if Trump targets Harvard specifically and does not issue the same cut back evenly to all American universities, it will have to be based on an objective reason not one based on the university not pursuing political policies Trump must agree with. Again while Trump shows continuing disregard for the freedom of assembly, speech, the courts each and every time he now tries to act out to punish his enemies, intercede to stop his abuse of power.

From a financial perspective and its public domain published by Harvard, the university uses federal funding to finance its operating expenses (student tuition, research). How Harvard will have to change its spending practices is not known but it will have to depend on more private funds to offset loss of federal funds. Such funds usually come from fundraising using its tax exempt status. Trump is threatening to revoke that as well.

What can and will happen if this continues, is that there will be a brain drain, i.e., doctoral; students will transfer to Canadian and European universities and so will Professors and specific research projects. Harcard's academic loss will result in a non American university's gain and universities that immediately come to mind in picking up the brain drain are McGill University in Montreal, University of Toronto, Oxford University, Cambridge, just to start.

What will probably happen like everything else Trump is doing is that the courts will prevent him from cutting funds but now the threaten has been issued the impact on foreign students and professors moving to other institutions has started. This kind of threat and retaliation sets long term lack of confidence in the US as a country of uncoerced education.

Trump believes he can control the thoughts, opinions and ideology of anyone and everyone in the US. As his dementia grows with its paranoid delusions, so do such actions. Its also believed he is enraged at Harvard for not accepting his son as a student.
 
Napoleon said:
Of the two, manufacturing Barbie dolls is the only thing that has produced tangible results. There is no cure for cancer. The best humanity can do is improve on treatment to buy time.
Click to expand...
The FDA has cleared EVM14, making it the first mRNA therapeutic cancer vaccine for global clinical trials. The FDA cleared the investigational new drug (IND) application for EVM14.Mar 24, 2025
 
Napoleon said:
As I said, focusing on treatment produces tangible results. Wasting time trying to find a “cure” doesn’t do anything. It’s unfortunate that people mistake remission for a “cure.” Treatment is about management and buying time. It is not a cure.
Click to expand...
Where do you think those tangible results come from?

Studies are performed with new modalities every day. Some work, some don't, and we don't know which is which until the studies are done.

You're fighting a battle of semantics to support Trump's petty vindictive vendetta that will make the next cancer breakthrough that much more difficult.
 
Mika-El said:
To answer you question properly:

1-The Trump Administration has targeted specific colleges and universities in regards to specific their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs-he has also at time stated he targets them because they are pro Hamas, anti-semitic, or "left wing";

2-in April Trump ordered federal officials to send a letter to Harvard demanding nt it do away with dei hiring practices of employees and entrance admissions policy for students;

3-Harvard refused and so now Trump has said he wilkl cut $2.2 billion in multi-year federal grants, $2.7 million in Department of Homeland Security grants and $1 billion in federal funding for health research;

4-Trump has also ordered Harvard can not take in foreign students;

5-Trump has also made many statements accusing Harvard of having a “lack of commitment” to “national values and priorities” .

To specifically answer your question with the above context in mind, in theory Harvard can survive without the grants Trump is threatening to cut. Trump will have his order to stop international students or the criteria for admissions of any students struck down. In regards to refusing grants if Trump targets Harvard specifically and does not issue the same cut back evenly to all American universities, it will have to be based on an objective reason not one based on the university not pursuing political policies Trump must agree with. Again while Trump shows continuing disregard for the freedom of assembly, speech, the courts each and every time he now tries to act out to punish his enemies, intercede to stop his abuse of power.

From a financial perspective and its public domain published by Harvard, the university uses federal funding to finance its operating expenses (student tuition, research). How Harvard will have to change its spending practices is not known but it will have to depend on more private funds to offset loss of federal funds. Such funds usually come from fundraising using its tax exempt status. Trump is threatening to revoke that as well.

What can and will happen if this continues, is that there will be a brain drain, i.e., doctoral; students will transfer to Canadian and European universities and so will Professors and specific research projects. Harcard's academic loss will result in a non American university's gain and universities that immediately come to mind in picking up the brain drain are McGill University in Montreal, University of Toronto, Oxford University, Cambridge, just to start.

What will probably happen like everything else Trump is doing is that the courts will prevent him from cutting funds but now the threaten has been issued the impact on foreign students and professors moving to other institutions has started. This kind of threat and retaliation sets long term lack of confidence in the US as a country of uncoerced education.

Trump believes he can control the thoughts, opinions and ideology of anyone and everyone in the US. As his dementia grows with its paranoid delusions, so do such actions. Its also believed he is enraged at Harvard for not accepting his son as a student.
Click to expand...
History has shown us that autocratic regimes frequently take aim at foreigners, artists, poets, authors, intellectuals, and free-thinkers of all stripes to suppress dissent. Read up on some history. May I suggest you start with the Cultural Revolution in China, the Philosophers' ships in the Soviet Union, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
 
Rexedgar said:
I don’t understand something here.
Endowment is defined as :Endowments may generally be described as assets (usually cash accounts that are invested in equities or bonds, or other investment vehicles) set aside so that the original assets (known as the “corpus”) grow over time as a result of income earned from interest on the underlying invested funds.

Harvard is reported to have over 50 billion in endowments. What effect will pulling 3 billion in Federal funds have on that size egg? Invested prudently, that money will last as long as there is money.
Click to expand...
Endowments are not readily accessible accounts for the most part that go towards specific budget items. Some can earn an organization interest, but not usually. Endowments are essentially part of what are called capital campaigns for non-profits that provide funding for specific projects and only those projects. So, if a rich person creates an endowment, that money may go towards building a library, improvements on a stadium, research facility, new equipment for said facilities, research grants for specific subjects, etc. But only for whatever the donor says it can go to and when.

In order for the endowment to pay for something other than what it is ear-marked for, both the folks who run the endowment and the school have to come to agreement to do that. The school can't just switch the money to something else.

So endowments normally don't pay for day-to-day operations of a school: janitorial, textbooks, campus maintenance, paying for electricity, water, etc. Basic operational costs. So, while Havard may have 50 billion in endowments, but it isn't as if that money is for basic operating costs or tuition normally (if it were, and it does happen, it would be considered operational and not capital campaign money). Nor can it be just for whatever they want it to be.

So, folks ask why aren't there that many endowments for operational campaigns? Answer: rich people don't like to do that because it doesn't do what they want it to do. What they want is their name on the side of a building or something like that, where they can point to it and say "Look at what I did: I did that!" But creating an endowment to pay the utilities or for a new janitor office is not as sexy and usually gets buried in the news and to them, which is worse, get looked down on by their peers.

So, 3 billion from a source that is probably used for a combination of research grants and operational needs that can provide at a quicker pace than an endowment, is pretty important. Because most of the endowments won't be allowed for anything that it is earmarked for and almost no one makes endowments or large pledges/donations big enough to pay that cost.

Full disclosure: I used to raise money for the arts way back in the day.
 
Napoleon said:
It’s right to question why a private institution with a $53 billion endowment and $6.5 billion in annual revenue needs a dime from the Federal government for research. That is money better spent by the NIH to do its own research rather than lavishing a private institution with taxpayer dollars to fund research of dubious value. The fact that Harvard isn’t paying for it already strongly implies that what these grants are funding is folly.
Click to expand...
I would take that more seriously if Trump hadn't cut around 1.8 billion from the NIH recently. Also, a large part of NIH's job is to create and fund university research grants, including Harvard, to the tune of around $34.5 billion. So, if you feel that NIH is doing good work, it is because 80% of its budget goes university research, which they then use at NIH for the rest of their research.
 
Well, there you have it: tow the Trump line or lose research funding.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom