Hopefully she gets deported to a good country. We’re evil now. Like Google turned evil.
If she’s being moved against her will, then it’s safe to assume she’s being moved someplace worse.
I hope her lawyer is skilled and the court responsive to arguments - and she gets her freedom back.
If I was her, one of my first actions would be starting to teach a colleague to replace me, while asking colleagues abroad about open jobs in research (followed by questions about legislation, immigration and civil rights).
Basically, I would not stay in a country whose officials wronged me for no reason, and might do that again.
Why on earth would she have any interest in helping the company retain knowledge when the country that company is in has treated her so poorly? Move on and it’s their loss.
I hear there is no shortage of countries willing to take American scientists. I don’t think she’ll have a problem finding a better (safer) place.
I hope she’s not sent to a death camp before a court have a chance to say anything, because that’s also a thing that can happen.
Last thing I’d do is give anyone a way to do my work without me present
ICE detained
thea Harvard scientist who analyzes themOooffff… Full support to this person but scientism is part of the problem.
Thanks for making me aware of scientism. I am a little unsure how it applies here through.
I’m confused by this. Can you explain?
How so?
Yeah made up stories by dusty old men are much better for understanding the truth of the world
I love the headline. That’s how you report on these issues: still clickbaity but focusing on the perps and the effects of their actions.
I don’t really like it, makes it sound as if her rights are only important because she is useful.
It’s important because the rhetoric of “we only want useful people” isn’t true. It’s not just about her, it’s also about false rhetoric.
While I agree with your concern, I think it does help highlight how bad these policies are because it is impacting more than just “useless <insert hated group here>” or something like that. I agree that rights should still matter regardless, but focusing on the impacts helps signal to broader audiences.
The main reason she is detained is probably that she is a russian who opposes the Ukraine war.
Do you have a source handy? With ICE backed by this administration, I wouldn’t imagine Russians with bad takes on Ukraine would be targets.
I’d imagine Russians opposing the Ukraine war would especially be targets, maybe you misread the comment and the “bad take”? Trump would be eager to get rid of pro-Ukraine speakers for Putin.
(A source would be nice too)
Isn’t this the main complaint about China and the communists from the West in terms of actions, not the half baked oversimplified idealist nonsense; anti academic injustices due to populist stupidity in politics that lead to mass murder and loss of human progress?
Yes, and I personally feel that until January 2025 it was still a valid claim for an american to make. Not anymore.
deleted by creator
“Could” in this context usually means it doesn’t.
the reason she was detained was that she was analyzing images that’d cure cancer. you underestimated big pharma
Somewhere in here is a perfect counter balance to right wing speak.
“A scientist who was about to publish a cancer curd has been arrest by border agents with Trump’s authority. Trump received billions big pharm funding.”
The trick with the right is it doesn’t need to be entity true. It just need to tick ther correct set of emotions.
Okay RFK.
Each cancer is almost a disease in itself, due to its own individual nature, for an effective treatment the ideal would be to use personalized medicine, which will always give a lot of money to big pharmaceutical companies, there is no need for them to delay or harm research into cancer treatment.
Realistically speaking, she’s most likely somehow sponsored by big pharma (Well considering that it’s imaging, it’s more the interesection between big tech and big pharma, not sure where to put health division of GE or Siemens) , and cancer treatment/dianostic bring them a lot of money so they like cancer research.
Looking at a couple publications from the lab funding appears to be from a couple different foundations but nothing commercial. Pharma barely puts anything into basic R+D unless they’re a startup. Established pharma R+D is largely clinical trials and/or process development. If her work is patented by the university then pharma may pay the university to use her work. University would then give a smaller kickback to the lab/scientists.
NCI (national cancer institute-part of NIH) was the largest cancer research funder in the US, about 7B worth and even then less than 10% of proposed projects were being funded. The ACS (American cancer society) funds about 100M.
Thank you for this. I’m not sure how it became common knowledge to assume pharma companies pay for r&d but I’ve seen 10 different people on this app say those exact words and it’s really starting to peeve me off.
