Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Funding for research grants from most of the NIH institutes is down to 5-10% of grants submitted. Many highly talented researchers with the potential to contribute major advances to science are already closing their research labs and finding new careers. Others who have been able to hold on are spending an inordinate amount of time perfecting their already outstanding grant applications to get into the funding range. This results in significant slowing down of their research programs.
Science and technical advancement in the US will soon be eclipsed by research in other countries (e.g. China) where funding is more generous. The US is loosing the competitive edge and any further reduction in the NIH budget will make this happen even faster.
and yet... so much research turns out to be garbage. cancer research using compromised cell lines. decades of research in social psychology crumbling before our eyes, neuroscience research widely inflated using incorrect statistics... and that's just stuff that has been checked.
Are you a scientist?
yes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Funding for research grants from most of the NIH institutes is down to 5-10% of grants submitted. Many highly talented researchers with the potential to contribute major advances to science are already closing their research labs and finding new careers. Others who have been able to hold on are spending an inordinate amount of time perfecting their already outstanding grant applications to get into the funding range. This results in significant slowing down of their research programs.
Science and technical advancement in the US will soon be eclipsed by research in other countries (e.g. China) where funding is more generous. The US is loosing the competitive edge and any further reduction in the NIH budget will make this happen even faster.
and yet... so much research turns out to be garbage. cancer research using compromised cell lines. decades of research in social psychology crumbling before our eyes, neuroscience research widely inflated using incorrect statistics... and that's just stuff that has been checked.
Anonymous wrote:Funding for research grants from most of the NIH institutes is down to 5-10% of grants submitted. Many highly talented researchers with the potential to contribute major advances to science are already closing their research labs and finding new careers. Others who have been able to hold on are spending an inordinate amount of time perfecting their already outstanding grant applications to get into the funding range. This results in significant slowing down of their research programs.
Science and technical advancement in the US will soon be eclipsed by research in other countries (e.g. China) where funding is more generous. The US is loosing the competitive edge and any further reduction in the NIH budget will make this happen even faster.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Funding for research grants from most of the NIH institutes is down to 5-10% of grants submitted. Many highly talented researchers with the potential to contribute major advances to science are already closing their research labs and finding new careers. Others who have been able to hold on are spending an inordinate amount of time perfecting their already outstanding grant applications to get into the funding range. This results in significant slowing down of their research programs.
Science and technical advancement in the US will soon be eclipsed by research in other countries (e.g. China) where funding is more generous. The US is loosing the competitive edge and any further reduction in the NIH budget will make this happen even faster.
and yet... so much research turns out to be garbage. cancer research using compromised cell lines. decades of research in social psychology crumbling before our eyes, neuroscience research widely inflated using incorrect statistics... and that's just stuff that has been checked.
Are you a scientist?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Funding for research grants from most of the NIH institutes is down to 5-10% of grants submitted. Many highly talented researchers with the potential to contribute major advances to science are already closing their research labs and finding new careers. Others who have been able to hold on are spending an inordinate amount of time perfecting their already outstanding grant applications to get into the funding range. This results in significant slowing down of their research programs.
Science and technical advancement in the US will soon be eclipsed by research in other countries (e.g. China) where funding is more generous. The US is loosing the competitive edge and any further reduction in the NIH budget will make this happen even faster.
and yet... so much research turns out to be garbage. cancer research using compromised cell lines. decades of research in social psychology crumbling before our eyes, neuroscience research widely inflated using incorrect statistics... and that's just stuff that has been checked.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NIH does crucial work but there's a lot of fat. I could cut the budget 10% today, 10% if I worked a while on it.
Please tell us exactly what you would cut. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Not PP, but: every IC has an IT shop, and there is also the central IT, and collectively they are an inefficient, overblown, uncoordinated monstrosity. Both IT contractors and Feds are paid on par or better than scientists and medical staff.
Then shouldn't things like that be the focus? How does a blanket cut help?
That should be a focus all the time, internally. Why wait for thumsbscrews to address inefficiencies?
Anonymous wrote:Funding for research grants from most of the NIH institutes is down to 5-10% of grants submitted. Many highly talented researchers with the potential to contribute major advances to science are already closing their research labs and finding new careers. Others who have been able to hold on are spending an inordinate amount of time perfecting their already outstanding grant applications to get into the funding range. This results in significant slowing down of their research programs.
Science and technical advancement in the US will soon be eclipsed by research in other countries (e.g. China) where funding is more generous. The US is loosing the competitive edge and any further reduction in the NIH budget will make this happen even faster.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NIH does crucial work but there's a lot of fat. I could cut the budget 10% today, 10% if I worked a while on it.
Please tell us exactly what you would cut. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Not PP, but: every IC has an IT shop, and there is also the central IT, and collectively they are an inefficient, overblown, uncoordinated monstrosity. Both IT contractors and Feds are paid on par or better than scientists and medical staff.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NIH does crucial work but there's a lot of fat. I could cut the budget 10% today, 10% if I worked a while on it.
Please tell us exactly what you would cut. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Not PP, but: every IC has an IT shop, and there is also the central IT, and collectively they are an inefficient, overblown, uncoordinated monstrosity. Both IT contractors and Feds are paid on par or better than scientists and medical staff.
Then shouldn't things like that be the focus? How does a blanket cut help?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NIH does crucial work but there's a lot of fat. I could cut the budget 10% today, 10% if I worked a while on it.
Please tell us exactly what you would cut. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Not PP, but: every IC has an IT shop, and there is also the central IT, and collectively they are an inefficient, overblown, uncoordinated monstrosity. Both IT contractors and Feds are paid on par or better than scientists and medical staff.
Then shouldn't things like that be the focus? How does a blanket cut help?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NIH does crucial work but there's a lot of fat. I could cut the budget 10% today, 10% if I worked a while on it.
Please tell us exactly what you would cut. Inquiring minds would like to know.
Not PP, but: every IC has an IT shop, and there is also the central IT, and collectively they are an inefficient, overblown, uncoordinated monstrosity. Both IT contractors and Feds are paid on par or better than scientists and medical staff.