NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has Trump even named RFK jr as the next Secretary of DHHS?

No... and I wonder if he'd pass teh backgroudn check, since he's admitted to killing a baer and dumping it in the woods.

[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.

Montana Arizona and North Carolina, all red, are three of the four states employing the most NIH staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He's not going to do sh t. These guys are all talk. They wouldn't know where to begin cutting or what the ramifications would be. Once they get in the door at the agencies, they'll get briefed on the agency and components and learn how important the jobs are. then they'll make some cosmetic changes to save face. Change some senior leadership roles. And that will be that.

Very likely.

Hard to fight what you don’t understand and NIH has very diplomatic leadership.

[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.

Your stories are gross generalizations. There are funding opportunities that prioritize diversity and many that do not. Move around. Sounds like the people you know just couldn’t hack it and that’s ok. NIH grants are very competitive. New admin will not care about DEI in grants as these practices have long been in place and a lot of testing is done on minority groups and not for altruistic reasons. DEI is more of a concern in the workforce and fulfillment of positions so your loser friends will still not be competitive for awards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Trump even named RFK jr as the next Secretary of DHHS?

No... and I wonder if he'd pass teh backgroudn check, since he's admitted to killing a baer and dumping it in the woods.

T doesn't follow procedures, he will make him acting and never confirm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see them firing senior leadership and if that was a concern many would retire. Many did during Biden’s term in preparation of this and many of them have already served 30+ years. They’re not sitting around to get booted out. I doubt they will fire that many. DEI will go first if they do but very few of those jobs are solely DEI and then if there is a RTO those who will not comply. I would be more concerned with budget cuts for funding that uses elective abortion stem cells than employees being fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see them firing senior leadership and if that was a concern many would retire. Many did during Biden’s term in preparation of this and many of them have already served 30+ years. They’re not sitting around to get booted out. I doubt they will fire that many. DEI will go first if they do but very few of those jobs are solely DEI and then if there is a RTO those who will not comply. I would be more concerned with budget cuts for funding that uses elective abortion stem cells than employees being fired.

NIH set up an entire new office separate from EEO for DEI. It's a waisted office with wasteful positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see them firing senior leadership and if that was a concern many would retire. Many did during Biden’s term in preparation of this and many of them have already served 30+ years. They’re not sitting around to get booted out. I doubt they will fire that many. DEI will go first if they do but very few of those jobs are solely DEI and then if there is a RTO those who will not comply. I would be more concerned with budget cuts for funding that uses elective abortion stem cells than employees being fired.

NIH set up an entire new office separate from EEO for DEI. It's a waisted office with wasteful positions.

Not a new office, just renamed. EEO under EDI and there are less than 30 employees in EDI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see them firing senior leadership and if that was a concern many would retire. Many did during Biden’s term in preparation of this and many of them have already served 30+ years. They’re not sitting around to get booted out. I doubt they will fire that many. DEI will go first if they do but very few of those jobs are solely DEI and then if there is a RTO those who will not comply. I would be more concerned with budget cuts for funding that uses elective abortion stem cells than employees being fired.

NIH set up an entire new office separate from EEO for DEI. It's a waisted office with wasteful positions.

Not a new office, just renamed. EEO under EDI and there are less than 30 employees in EDI.

Thanks for the clarification. Must’ve overlooked at email as I will with all of them related to that topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He won’t name RFK to HHS or FDA. He’s flagrantly unqualified to lead an agency of scientists. RDK I’m guessing will have some kind of advisory role. He didn’t even name him to the EPA and environmental law is RFK’s actual career.

I'm beginning to suspect this also. For two reasons. Least of which, RFK ran for President and has supporters, which makes him a potential competitor. But most of all because the pharmaceutical cos need the free drug R&D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He won’t name RFK to HHS or FDA. He’s flagrantly unqualified to lead an agency of scientists. RDK I’m guessing will have some kind of advisory role. He didn’t even name him to the EPA and environmental law is RFK’s actual career.

I'm beginning to suspect this also. For two reasons. Least of which, RFK ran for President and has supporters, which makes him a potential competitor. But most of all because the pharmaceutical cos need the free drug R&D.

You are right that the Phrma companies are not going to want RFK anywhere near HHS. But you’re wrong about the reason. NIH funds shockingly little of the work that goes on to make a drug. The companies want to sell their vaccines and other meds. HHS sec impacts so many industries, I can see a roid-using worm head any wear near it.

That said, I was at nih for 5 year and an external partner now. There is a lot of waste at that agency. I’m not talking about the scientists. The admin is bloated.

[Anonymous]

And now RFK Jr has been picked to head up DHHS. It’ll be interesting to see who he advises Trump to choose as NIH Director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And now RFK Jr has been picked to head up DHHS. It’ll be interesting to see who he advises Trump to choose as NIH Director.

Hopefully Monica can stay. Boy oh boy, this country is doomed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Trump even named RFK jr as the next Secretary of DHHS?

No... and I wonder if he'd pass teh backgroudn check, since he's admitted to killing a baer and dumping it in the woods.

POTUS can grant a security clearance to anyone he wants. It’s in the Constitution.

[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.

Putting a single cancer or Alzheimer's drug on the market costs on average 2.5B over more than 10 years (for ONE medication). Only Big Pharma has those deep pockets.

You guys really need to educate yourselves before you shoot yourselves in the foot.

- research scientist.

I can't stand the way "Big Pharma" is villianized.