NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:600 employees from 18,000 is not that much. Roughly 3.5% reduction. Most likely will be DEI will be on the chopping block and I believe that accounts for 100 or so positions agency wide. Also, ICs that deal heavily with HFT research will most likely see significant budget cuts or outright banning of HFT usage. There was also mention of abolishing the HESC database, which sounds unlikely but that’s out there.

If they fire senior leadership at ICOs across the NIH, it will have a huge impact. And that’s only, what, ~300 people at the most? If I worked at NIAID, NIMHD, ORWH, I’d be very, very nervous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Given the bear story, it sounds like he and RFK were birds of a feather. (Pun not intended, but there it is.)
I'm not involved with NIH, but have close family members that have grants, and/or spent decades as part of study groups, and have many friends/neighbors who administer grants and/or work in NIH labs. I am so in awe of all of them, and the incredible work they do day in and day out, which most of us would never understand, but almost all of us benefit from. I'm so sad at the idea that some idiot with a famous name is going to endanger that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And guess who did do that? Biden. But those regs are definitely on the chopping block.

Historically, Rs have been pretty decent about NIH. Because guess who gets cancer, or has family members with genetic diseases, or gets into car accidents and has impairments? Rs. Well, Rs and Ds. McCain is the obvious example, but Hatch was another, and there are still plenty of Republicans, even in the MAGA world, that have medical conditions or care about people with medical conditions that they would like better treatments or cures for.

I'd be much more nervous if I was in CDC.

[Anonymous]

They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

[Anonymous]

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

Yes, he's well aware that these vaccines will cause an enormous uptick in certain cancers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, he's well aware that these vaccines will cause an enormous uptick in certain cancers.

Citation for your claim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

Historically both parties have treated the NIH well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

Historically both parties have treated the NIH well.

Have there ever been MAGA republicans before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

Historically both parties have treated the NIH well.

This is not the GOP, this is MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

I remember when Harold Varmus (NIH Director appointed under Clinton) wanted to decrease the number of institutes to 5.

Research funding does need to be overhauled. Look at the amyloid-related Alzheimer's research where $1B of NIH funding has essentially gone down the drain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Because stupid people in power do stupid things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

Historically both parties have treated the NIH well.

Have there ever been MAGA republicans before?

They need to get people like DeSantis (Florida gets ton of NiH research grants) and the wounded warrior folks on this, plus any R congressmen with family members with cancer or spinal cord injuries. Historically it has been very successful to get conservatives who have an interest in this area to put personal pressure and put a face on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

Historically both parties have treated the NIH well.

Have there ever been MAGA republicans before?

They need to get people like DeSantis (Florida gets ton of NiH research grants) and the wounded warrior folks on this, plus any R congressmen with family members with cancer or spinal cord injuries. Historically it has been very successful to get conservatives who have an interest in this area to put personal pressure and put a face on it.

DP - I think it’s entirely possible that the overall NIH budget stays relatively the same, but it’s restructured both in terms of ICOs and grant funding processes. Those wouldn’t necessarily be bad things, depending on who’s overseeing them.

I mean, one R committee proposed changing NIA to National Institute on Dementia. That’s all kinds of stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Why are you in such deep denial of what he and Trump have said they will do?

[Anonymous]

600 is a tiny fraction of the 4,000 or so people who are eligible to retire now. So, the first 600 people who retire will be claimed by him as the ones he "gutted."