NIH in limbo

[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.

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.

I think you are singing an old story. I hope you realize that DEI hold 10% weightage with all the new NIH and DoE grants. If you are not aware of that then you are clueless. Yes, this is lowering the level of funding.

[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.

Yes, NIH has a lot of loafers as they have lot of good employees.

[Anonymous]

A conservative Supreme Court justice’s child works at NIH, so I actually feel a lot more comfortable it won’t be gutted compared to other departments. He may be more inclined to support a legal challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A conservative Supreme Court justice’s child works at NIH, so I actually feel a lot more comfortable it won’t be gutted compared to other departments. He may be more inclined to support a legal challenge.

I’m sure they just won’t fire him.

[Anonymous]

Welp, if you study infectious disease, cancer, or genetic disease, you may be at risk....for 8 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp, if you study infectious disease, cancer, or genetic disease, you may be at risk....for 8 years.

This guy is looney tunes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same.
I wonder if RFK Jr. takes any meds, like for his voice problem.
The idea that there are natural or herbal solutions has been kicked around for about 40-50 years. There’s nothing there or we’d have found it by now. There are always risks when you take meds and side effects. There is nothing 100% in medicine. I’d rather chance a side effect than not cure or waylay an illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a management problem. It takes effort and documentation, but you can get rid of poor performers. Duplication of work should not be happening.

[Anonymous]

600/18000=.03%. Early retirement incentives will quickly retire that group.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/16/nih-director-jay-bhattacharya-covid-great-barrington-declaration/

I love this. Francis Collins called Dr. Bhattacharya a fringe epidemiologist for daring to voice a different view on covid restrictions, and it would be poetic justice for him to replace Collins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/16/nih-director-jay-bhattacharya-covid-great-barrington-declaration/

I love this. Francis Collins called Dr. Bhattacharya a fringe epidemiologist for daring to voice a different view on covid restrictions, and it would be poetic justice for him to replace Collins.

Collins retired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/16/nih-director-jay-bhattacharya-covid-great-barrington-declaration/

I love this. Francis Collins called Dr. Bhattacharya a fringe epidemiologist for daring to voice a different view on covid restrictions, and it would be poetic justice for him to replace Collins.

Collins retired.

Sorry for not being clearer. Yes, Dr. Bhattacharya wouldn’t be Collins’ immediate successor, as he would (if nominated and confirmed) be Collins’ replacement’s replacement. Dr. Bertagnolli has been in the NIH Director position for one year.

[Anonymous]

I guess eating McDonalds and drinking a Diet Coke won’t be abolished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RFK has said he would gut 600 employees at NIH. Wonder which roles they will be with over 18k employees.

nih is so bloated.

People that valuable should have an easy time finding a new job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RFK has said he would gut 600 employees at NIH. Wonder which roles they will be with over 18k employees.

Can hardly wait. Thank you, RFK!