NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All NIH study sections (i.e. review panels) suspended until further notice. So no grant proposals will be reviewed. I guess the EO pausing all communications was worded in a way that caught this in its net? Not a good look for biomedical science.

This needs to cool off a bit to understand the direction of funding and the ROI on federal funded research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a union for nih employees? Asking for a friend

Most of the professional positions are not part of the union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Notice how you give no specific examples. Also the broken English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Notice how you give no specific examples. Also the broken English.

What is "400% for the labor rate"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Notice how you give no specific examples. Also the broken English.

What is "400% for the labor rate"?

Also “Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right” and “wastage.” I’m guessing these are calques from the original Russian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

What was your area specialty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

\

Nonsense -- the highest overhead rate (which is negotiated by each institution individually with the Federal government) is ~95%, i.e. for every $ the research gets, the institution gets $0.95. Most are in the $0.45-$0.55 range. These funds are used to keep the lights on, research facilities operational, etc etc. The whole nonsense about institutions padding indirects (as these overheads are called) with administrative bloat is just that. A lot of added admin is due to the enhanced compliance rules that Congress (and Fed rules) have imposed.

And for the PP complaining about ROI on Fed supported research -- this grant https://reporter.nih.gov/search/uE4U-vCn-ESe4R8UT2SSuQ/project-details/7020663 supported the discovery of GLP-1 which eventually led to Ozempic and others. These drugs are projected to increase US GDP by ~1%, or about $200B, or 4 years of NIH funding. Not bad for a measly 20M over 20 years.

[Anonymous]

No wonder we are in this situation because lots of posters over here think that whatever NIH or similar agencies are doing is good. Padding up federal research $s is very common practice for NIH funded grants and they should be R&D contracts instead of grants so awardees are responsible for the deliverables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

\

Nonsense -- the highest overhead rate (which is negotiated by each institution individually with the Federal government) is ~95%, i.e. for every $ the research gets, the institution gets $0.95. Most are in the $0.45-$0.55 range. These funds are used to keep the lights on, research facilities operational, etc etc. The whole nonsense about institutions padding indirects (as these overheads are called) with administrative bloat is just that. A lot of added admin is due to the enhanced compliance rules that Congress (and Fed rules) have imposed.

And for the PP complaining about ROI on Fed supported research -- this grant https://reporter.nih.gov/search/uE4U-vCn-ESe4R8UT2SSuQ/project-details/7020663 supported the discovery of GLP-1 which eventually led to Ozempic and others. These drugs are projected to increase US GDP by ~1%, or about $200B, or 4 years of NIH funding. Not bad for a measly 20M over 20 years.

Seriously. If you want to know what a university has to do to get a fed grant, go read the terms and conditions in grants policy (2CFR 200). There are a million requirements, some of which have hung on for decades. So the bloated “overhead” is because Congress keeps putting on new requirements that have nothing to do with the research. The latest are on research security. Having to hire security people who can look at PI information for connection to “countries of concern” is not free. And no, there is no new money. It will involve reshuffling administrators. But no prof/researcher can do all this on their own. They need to get “administrative support” aka “overhead” to make this all work.

[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.

That would assume reason on his part. He has shown that he is not reasonable. He is batsh*t crazy.

[Anonymous]

I'm reasonably sure this is because of all the comms on public health from CDC/NIH during Covid. The EO bans all comms (except perhaps emergency/public safety ones) until they have a vetting system in place and HHS Secy is confirmed (Feb 1 is optimistic). NIH Director and staff have decided that since all meetings and staff travel might involve "comms", they should err on the side of caution and suspend everything until they have more clarity. That's the problem with brief EOs that have no nuance and are authored by folks who have limited appreciation of the complexity and scope of what they are restricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.

No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.

Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.

Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.

I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.

Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.

The universities overhead percentage is crazy at some places and they use these grants to pay for bulk of their top expenses. Look at JHU, Stanford and Harvard out of many more.