Comment by bonsai_spool

> US has taken an absolute nose-dive several times over the past decade or two

This is also my field... and if the nose-dive is what has delivered in these past two decades RNA-seq, induced pluripotent stem cell generation, CRISPR-mediated genome therapies, CAR-T therapy, single-cell RNA and DNA profiling, spatial transcriptomics, targeted GLP- and incretin-modulation therapies? Then that's a wonderful nosedive.

The capital investment has always been true if you want to do R1 research. But you don't have to do that at all! There's also Oxford Nanopore, tons of open data through NCBI and other resources, more open papers than ever.

> It also requires a broad and deep skill set.

Yes. Like anything, being good takes time.

> Academia can no longer support a huge swath of biomedical research.

Maybe. I think there will be money for things that affect the rich (incurable cancer, longevity) and for things that are sexy to the unsophisticated (CZI Biohub 'OpenCell'). But there is money in this, so I don't think academia (to wit, people who know how to do research) will go away, just will change.