NIH in limbo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they’ll want to install one of their own puppets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which admin? You don't know what you're talking about. If Congress wants to reduce admin costs, they can figure out how to pass a budget.

[Anonymous]

I work for an agency under HHS. Very sad and frustrated tonight.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, 600 employees is nothing. Any agency could easily reduce 20-30% staff and would not miss them and NIH is very bloated.

[Anonymous]

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

No, the quality goes so down when you start doing this DEI crap. Race can't make you do research or high tech work. Stop dumbing down the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, 600 employees is nothing. Any agency could easily reduce 20-30% staff and would not miss them and NIH is very bloated.

How is NIH very bloated? Specific examples please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No, the quality goes so down when you start doing this DEI crap. Race can't make you do research or high tech work. Stop dumbing down the country.

I graduated with a 4.0 GPA in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech and had all kind of awards and successful internships. Guess what? When I first started working people still doubted me because I am black. Yet everytime they needed to solve some tough problems they turned to me. Not every minority is a DEI hire. Some of us had perfect sat scores, perfect gpa, and had patents to our names.

[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.

Free drug R&D? What on earth are you talking about?

[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.

Most senior leaders haven’t been there 30+ years, with a few notable exceptions. I have no idea what they’ll actually do, but I think it’s naive to assume the only changes will be to HFT research and DEIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Free drug R&D? What on earth are you talking about?

Are you really this ignorant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which part of the Constitution mentions security clearances?

[Anonymous]

Prescription opioids have been restricted and very difficult to get legitimately for close to a decade. Why are so many people still seeking out drugs then? Not a lot are getting addicted because they broke their arms and took too much OxyContin nowadays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which part of the Constitution mentions security clearances?

I'm sure you know that most of the Constitution doesn't spell out specifics, yet courts constantly apply current day situations to a document written centuries ago, and that POTUS has wide authority granted by...wait for it...Article II.

I'm sure you also remember that this applied when Jared Kushner wasn't going to be approved for a security clearance, yet he still got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, 600 employees is nothing. Any agency could easily reduce 20-30% staff and would not miss them and NIH is very bloated.

How is NIH very bloated? Specific examples please.

DP.

I can give you an example from my NIH office (on the admin side, not the science). We have staff who cannot do their work. Either due to plain incompetence or just not wanting to be bothered (and save me the "oh they need to be written up/removed". It doesn't happen). So what do we do? We hire contractors to do it for them. So taxpayers are paying for the same position twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Big Pharma is why my allergies are under control, why my mother has Parkinson's meds that are helping her stave off more serious symptoms, why my diabetic husband is alive. I am grateful to Big Pharma every single day.