NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

RFK has said he would gut 600 employees at NIH. Wonder which roles they will be with over 18k employees.

[Anonymous]

Hope he knows mRNA vaccine research has huge implications for cancer therapies….

[Anonymous]

His brain has been eaten by parasites.

[Anonymous]

I'd imagine he'd have his eye on:

Everyone in Building 1.

IC Directors, Deputy Directors, Scientific Directors.

Grant decision makers.

Policy decision makers.

FOIA staff (the "FOIA Lady" in NIAID has not done these folks any favors).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hope he knows mRNA vaccine research has huge implications for cancer therapies….

Turbo cancer?

[Anonymous]

Question - Do you believe anything that he says about vaccines?

If the answer is no, why do you believe what he is saying about the NIH, or anything else for that matter?

[Anonymous]

I would assume his approach will be less vaccines and NIH (FDA and CDC are much bigger fish to fry in that realm) and more a general overhaul in line with his thoughts on preventative health.

Plus his concerns about conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.

[Anonymous]

what portion of that 600 are political appointees that would already be exiting?

They do this -- lots of noise without doing the thing they say. Their whole thing is misinformation. Don't amplify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what portion of that 600 are political appointees that would already be exiting?

They do this -- lots of noise without doing the thing they say. Their whole thing is misinformation. Don't amplify it.

NIH has only two political appointees: the NIH Director and the Director of the National Cancer Institute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would assume his approach will be less vaccines and NIH (FDA and CDC are much bigger fish to fry in that realm) and more a general overhaul in line with his thoughts on preventative health.

Plus his concerns about conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry.

Looking forward to shining some light on this. Our regulators should not be in bed with big business.

[Anonymous]

he will outsource most of the in-house R&D and other work.

[Anonymous]

Why get rid of some many people? The current staff can just act on the new policies and initiative implemented by the new administration. That has always been done in the past, but it's a new era now I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of some many people? The current staff can just act on the new policies and initiative implemented by the new administration. That has always been done in the past, but it's a new era now I guess.

They want to install their cronies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of some many people? The current staff can just act on the new policies and initiative implemented by the new administration. That has always been done in the past, but it's a new era now I guess.

I’m not at NIH but this is what drives me crazy about all the anti-bureaucrat “deep state” talk. My perspective after being in govt for several decades is that the GS staff are very aware of our role to implement the policies of whatever administration is in office. If anything, I feel like people fall all over themselves trying to ingratiate themselves with the politicals of the moment. There isn’t some kind of sabotage effort occurring. I’m a lawyer in an OGC so, yes, if they want to do something and there is no legal authority for it, it’s our obligation to tell them but then it’s their call to as to whether to ignore that legal opinion. It can create tension if an administration wants us to say there’s legal authority for something when there’s not (and there are moments of such tension with politicals of both parties) but responsible people of both parties have long understood these roles and responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of some many people? The current staff can just act on the new policies and initiative implemented by the new administration. That has always been done in the past, but it's a new era now I guess.

I’m not at NIH but this is what drives me crazy about all the anti-bureaucrat “deep state” talk. My perspective after being in govt for several decades is that the GS staff are very aware of our role to implement the policies of whatever administration is in office. If anything, I feel like people fall all over themselves trying to ingratiate themselves with the politicals of the moment. There isn’t some kind of sabotage effort occurring. I’m a lawyer in an OGC so, yes, if they want to do something and there is no legal authority for it, it’s our obligation to tell them but then it’s their call to as to whether to ignore that legal opinion. It can create tension if an administration wants us to say there’s legal authority for something when there’s not (and there are moments of such tension with politicals of both parties) but responsible people of both parties have long understood these roles and responsibilities.

There are no two parties
Dictatorship