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.

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.

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.

The Ethics department is probably a target as well.

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.

Yeah like all of Trump’s picks so far are supremely qualified for their positions. Are you new here?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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

He’s already trying to bypass the confirmation stages

right but he's named some other people. not sure he's actually named RFK

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

He’s already trying to bypass the confirmation stages

Those who don’t understand science blame nih for the pandemic. They think if they get rid of cdc and vaccines, disease will just “go away”. Like a little child who puts their fingers over their eyes.

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

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.

DP. I don't understand your point. I think many people have concerns about the revolving door (from federal oversight/regulation positions to Pharma jobs). While those may not be NIH jobs per se, how does what you post pertain to minimizing conflict of interest, be it NIH, FDA, or CDC?

I can only speak to NIH, but there are already very strict rules in place to minimize conflict of interest and a 'revolving door' at NIH. To the point, in fact, that it can be very hard to recruit mid-career and senior level folks to the intramural NIH program because those people would have to divest of any interests and ties to industry - something that we don't ask folks in the extramural NIH community to do (such as those in academia, who would not be subject to any RIFs by RFK).

This is probably different at the FDA, given what I've heard from colleagues over there.

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.

DP. I don't understand your point. I think many people have concerns about the revolving door (from federal oversight/regulation positions to Pharma jobs). While those may not be NIH jobs per se, how does what you post pertain to minimizing conflict of interest, be it NIH, FDA, or CDC?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:he will outsource most of the in-house R&D and other work.

That will be very hard to do. Industry benefits from the long, hard, risky R&D that is done by NIH and NIH-funded labs. They don't do this work for a good reason - it is hard to profit off of this phase of basic research and preclinical development. In short, I don't see him being successful in getting industry on board with this.

Anonymous wrote:Why get rid of some many people? The current staff can just act on the new policies and initiative implemented by the new administration. That has always been done in the past, but it's a new era now I guess.

Revenge. Looking for those in NIH who undercut Trump, and while some may be gone now, it doesn't mean he doesn't want NIH to pay the price.