Re:Why I'm Resigning from the National Science Foundation
by burkaman on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @01:07PM
(#43975198)
I respect your opinion, to me it does sound like a lot, and it's also on top of many existing programs and a few other new things included in this announcement.
> The initiative also includes a target for member states to allocate 3 percent of their GDP to R&D projects by 2030. [...] The plan, originally proposed by the French government, also proposes creating long-term “super grants” for outstanding researchers, to provide them with financial stability; these would last for seven years. The program also plans to double the amount of financial support available this year for those who decide to move to the European Union.
You can get a sense of everything they have available here: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/research-and-innovation/....
Re:Why I'm Resigning from the National Science Foundation
by mettamage on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @04:33PM
(#43977397)
Ah, thanks for showing me more context about it. I considered the 500 million too much into isolation
Re:Why I'm Resigning from the National Science Foundation
by j7ake on Tuesday May 13, 2025 @01:54PM
(#43975737)
1000 scientists is a lot. The entire Microsoft research department is about 1000 scientists, and they are a productive bunch
I asked ChatGPT, it thought for 3 minutes and 36 seconds. You can see the Q&A here [1].
Assuming that a one year salary of the average scientist is 100K euro's [2] then that means you're trying to attract an extra 1250 scientists that will work for 4 years.
That doesn't sound like a lot on a continental scale.
[1] https://chatgpt.com/share/682376a6-5c68-8005-89ab-2bedd453c7...
[2] It's definitely lower than 100K, but it allows for unexpected hidden overhead that ChatGPT potentially didn't account for.