Guidelines and standards can change quickly. It's important for clinicians to have a foundational understanding of statistical methods and to be able to critique studies.
For certain specialties, the number of residency positions is so limited that medical students have to publish research to be competitive, even if they have no interest in doing so later in their career.
But altogether I sort of agree, the incentives are pretty maligned such that for many it's just easier to become a bad scientist with more publications than a good one with fewer.
> 100% support (10s of millions of Americans do) many of these cuts
I doubt "10s of millions of Americans" can describe the core functions of the NIH
> when scientists are hired because they know someone, or are part of some “group” rather than being the best choice.
How do you think new appointees and hires in the NIH/HHS are selected? Political loyalty seems to be a better predictor than scientific impact or output.
> Also not interested in funding anything not research related, including various “offices” that have nothing to do with supporting research. Lots of things to like about these cuts.
The cuts and changes are dramatically impacting research support. Grant money is not being disbursed at the same rate since the new review changes began. You can more plainly characterize the changes as harmful to research in general than focused on removing whatever specific things you don't like.
Other commenters have pointed out the original, but I just wanted to suggest checking out the game Noita, which is an exploration/roguelike set in a world that mechanically operates like the falling sand game.
The mechanism would be the judicial system, and in the case of restricting abortion services, the regulation would probably be subject to strict scrutiny.
Easily fetching the canonical metadata is so useful when doing a literature search and collecting sources, or trying to put together a bibliography. In Zotero (and presumably other bibliography managers), you can just plug the DOI in and you instantly have the title, authors, abstract, etc.
IIRC the OAuth2-interfacing application needs to (or at least should) know beforehand exactly what to request access to, so if that's read/write access to all of the user's content, it's trivial. For the external application to know something specific like a particular resource is more complicated to deal with (especially with private/hidden content), so most OAuth providers don't provide that level of granularity. It can be done, it just requires more engineering than most (all?) off-the-shelf OAuth solutions provide, and it's more control than most users actually need.
For certain specialties, the number of residency positions is so limited that medical students have to publish research to be competitive, even if they have no interest in doing so later in their career.
But altogether I sort of agree, the incentives are pretty maligned such that for many it's just easier to become a bad scientist with more publications than a good one with fewer.