NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

I mean, grant PIs are mostly older white guys and system is rigged so as no DEI can change this, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

This and the entire grants process needs a major overhaul.

Oh something innovative and a different approach? Nah, no grant for you. Something old and a retread? Congrats, here's your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Given the current paylines at the ICs most PIs would have better luck buying a Powerball ticket than getting a grant funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Given the current paylines at the ICs most PIs would have better luck buying a Powerball ticket than getting a grant funded.

That may be true, but when they inject a racial component to it as justification for denial rather than basing the decision solely off scientific merits of the proposal, it is a dangerous slippery slope and will absolutely be red meat for this admin. They will look to make heads roll for whomever makes decisions like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Wow you're back!!! You've been posting this same complaint for YEARS now. I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time getting grant funding, but you are completely off base and this is not how grants work at NIH. Seriously, you need to find something else to blame for your lack of funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Also, what field of cancer research could you possibly be in where this is true? What journals are you publishing in where this is even scrutinized? Definitely not Nature or Cell branded journals based on my recent experience. Seriously this is the same stupid and false rant you posted the last time NIH came up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Wow you're back!!! You've been posting this same complaint for YEARS now. I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time getting grant funding, but you are completely off base and this is not how grants work at NIH. Seriously, you need to find something else to blame for your lack of funding.

I was just going to chime in, bc this hasn’t been my experience at all, nor have I heard this in any academic setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

I was the PI of an NIH grant (NCI). Had to close my lab and leave academia because I couldn’t keep an R01 or equivalent, so I’m certainly not a huge fan of the process.

However, your claims are largely untrue. There are always going to be issues that affect funding, for instance, a few years ago it was easier to get funded for research on cancers that affect many people (prostate, lung, breast, colon) and tougher with less common neoplasms (such as melanoma).

Funded investigators tend to come from historically successful labs or have the strong backing of a powerful PI who goes to bat for the researcher. It is often an intensely political process, but not for the DEI reasons you suggest.

It’s a game - what agency (NCI, NHLBI, NIGMS) has the best funding line (and can you tweak your project to fit the mission of the agency with the best funding line?), what study section do you choose, does your program office seem to want to help you, does your sponsor/mentor have an “in” with the members of the study section, etc. And generally you have at least the 1st specific aim nearly done so that you can rapidly publish to show progress. That’s why it’s called “grantsmanship” - it’s a GAME where skill is important, but so is luck. DEI is probably the least important of all these variables.

The numbers bear this out: R01 funded investigator are not predominantly minorities or women. They are mostly men (about 67% according to a recent study).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

I was the PI of an NIH grant (NCI). Had to close my lab and leave academia because I couldn’t keep an R01 or equivalent, so I’m certainly not a huge fan of the process.

However, your claims are largely untrue. There are always going to be issues that affect funding, for instance, a few years ago it was easier to get funded for research on cancers that affect many people (prostate, lung, breast, colon) and tougher with less common neoplasms (such as melanoma).

Funded investigators tend to come from historically successful labs or have the strong backing of a powerful PI who goes to bat for the researcher. It is often an intensely political process, but not for the DEI reasons you suggest.

It’s a game - what agency (NCI, NHLBI, NIGMS) has the best funding line (and can you tweak your project to fit the mission of the agency with the best funding line?), what study section do you choose, does your program office seem to want to help you, does your sponsor/mentor have an “in” with the members of the study section, etc. And generally you have at least the 1st specific aim nearly done so that you can rapidly publish to show progress. That’s why it’s called “grantsmanship” - it’s a GAME where skill is important, but so is luck. DEI is probably the least important of all these variables.

The numbers bear this out: R01 funded investigator are not predominantly minorities or women. They are mostly men (about 67% according to a recent study).

Yes. I'm the one that noticed this repeat poster. The whole grant funding scheme is flawed and could use some serious improvements that reward innovation over pedigree, and disingenuous arguments about DEI derail what could be productive investigations into how to improve the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Wow you're back!!! You've been posting this same complaint for YEARS now. I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time getting grant funding, but you are completely off base and this is not how grants work at NIH. Seriously, you need to find something else to blame for your lack of funding.

I was just going to chime in, bc this hasn’t been my experience at all, nor have I heard this in any academic setting.

Clearly you've never been "strongly encouraged" by reviewer #3 to include the 'suggested' diversity statement if you want a chance at publishing. Example:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-023-00061-5


This can be insanely cumbersome to do when you're dealing with foreign names with nationalities all over the world for which you have no idea what the genders are for the names or what preferred pronouns someone in sri Lanka uses. But we need researchers to spend inordinate amounts of time "bioengineering justice".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think NIH is in for a WORLD of pain if they dig hard enough. It has mostly to do with crazy DEI pushes the NIH is imposing for grants.

I know people in academia who were basically told 'no grant money for you!' because the cancer they wanted to study primarily occurs in white males. All science was thrown out the window. It didn't even matter how well the technology fit a certain kind of specific cancer, because of the fact that it occured mostly in white males funding was basically being blocked because it didn't meet the diversity goals of the NIH. Totally insane.

I've also heard of crazy other stories where you now have to write up mind boggling sections for some grants on how your research project will impacr diversity and help to address equity for marginalized communities or whatever. Like on what planet does this kind of mindless pandering make any sense whatsoever for science when all you're trying to do is make a computer algorithm for detection of cancer or something. All sorts of mind bending diversity stuff imposed by the NIH/science journals I heard, like requiring a certain amount of citations from female authors to address 'gender inequity' (and even though there may be little relevant publications to cite from a female researcher on a specific topic). Other crazy stuff like monitoring racial numbers in programs to see if universities are basically meeting race quotas in order to keep their large grants.

Look, I get the need for equality and addressing disparities, but some of the stuff is absolutely whacky and mindless stupidity that throws science by the wayside for the DEI golden calf. This is the kind of stuff that is red meat for this new administration, and they'll find it if they look. All of this stuff is well known in academia. It is so toxic.

Wow you're back!!! You've been posting this same complaint for YEARS now. I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time getting grant funding, but you are completely off base and this is not how grants work at NIH. Seriously, you need to find something else to blame for your lack of funding.

I was just going to chime in, bc this hasn’t been my experience at all, nor have I heard this in any academic setting.

Clearly you've never been "strongly encouraged" by reviewer #3 to include the 'suggested' diversity statement if you want a chance at publishing. Example:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s44222-023-00061-5


This can be insanely cumbersome to do when you're dealing with foreign names with nationalities all over the world for which you have no idea what the genders are for the names or what preferred pronouns someone in sri Lanka uses. But we need researchers to spend inordinate amounts of time "bioengineering justice".

Nature Reviews Bioengineering? I thought you were a cancer researcher? Let me guess, you just googled for something that supported your vendetta without actual experience with the journal.

Let me guess at your reply: "But seriously! Googling the people that you are citing takes you a ton of time!"

[Anonymous]

RFK Jr took over the Riverkeepers org from the founder. He installed two people on the board who had been seriously discredited in ecological circles. One had illegally imported birds and bird eggs and had been arrested. The founder resigned and has been outspokenly critical about him. The recent New Yorker article as well as the bio by Jerry Oppenheimer discusses this. I think he will bring in medically dubious people that he knows already who go against standard medical beliefs. He is said to be something of a tyrant and will insist on his way. People will resign and he will speak neutrally of them. He has a very very good sense of PR spin. No one should take him seriously. Look at his record. The only reason he got involved with Riverkeepers was to fulfill community service after a drug arrest. He parlayed this into a career but other people do his work for him, like write his books. He will be destructive.

[Anonymous]

I have faith in how impossible it is to change government agencies. Good luck to RFK. He'll probably quit in 3 months anyway. No one works from Trump for long

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I bet that includes a lot of Trump supporters, too. All politicians, left and right, are in bed with big business.

Remember that time during Trump's first term when he said he was going to get the pharma companies to lower drug prices? And then after a meeting with them, he ended up not doing that, and instead, gave them big tax cuts.

[Anonymous]

Who are the 600 people at the nih that Rfk wants to fire? Trying to figure out if I’m one of them!