Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.
I worked for a PI who was very good at writing grants, was extremely innovative and well respected and, as a result, was very, very well funded. But he also won a Nobel Prize a few years later for contributions to humanity. Others in the department were washing and reusing disposable items to try to stretch every penny. It really depends on who you are, how good you are, and if your field is trending.
Universities do take a percentage off the top of every grant for overhead, so grants do pay to keep the lights on at many institutions. That's not a scam, but built into the system.
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.
Anonymous wrote:\Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.
Nonsense -- the highest overhead rate (which is negotiated by each institution individually with the Federal government) is ~95%, i.e. for every $ the research gets, the institution gets $0.95. Most are in the $0.45-$0.55 range. These funds are used to keep the lights on, research facilities operational, etc etc. The whole nonsense about institutions padding indirects (as these overheads are called) with administrative bloat is just that. A lot of added admin is due to the enhanced compliance rules that Congress (and Fed rules) have imposed.
And for the PP complaining about ROI on Fed supported research -- this grant https://reporter.nih.gov/search/uE4U-vCn-ESe4R8UT2SSuQ/project-details/7020663 supported the discovery of GLP-1 which eventually led to Ozempic and others. These drugs are projected to increase US GDP by ~1%, or about $200B, or 4 years of NIH funding. Not bad for a measly 20M over 20 years.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.
\Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Agree. I was a reviewer for grants in my area specialty many years ago. Maybe things have changed, but back then grants were padded extensively. It was just common practice. A colleague used to joke about the number of new chairs and classroom technology each grant provided to universities.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Notice how you give no specific examples. Also the broken English.
What is "400% for the labor rate"?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Notice how you give no specific examples. Also the broken English.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.
Who gets to decide on the research topics and how is the overhead judged if a research center is asking for 400% for the labor rate? No explanation for the fat overhead except bloated Senior management. I know because I work there and have been doing this for more than a decade. Everything that federal employees are involved with is not cool and right. There is a lot of wastage which people could see once they take their blinders off.
Anonymous wrote:Is there a union for nih employees? Asking for a friend
Anonymous wrote:All NIH study sections (i.e. review panels) suspended until further notice. So no grant proposals will be reviewed. I guess the EO pausing all communications was worded in a way that caught this in its net? Not a good look for biomedical science.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am not the PP but NIH has a lot of wastage for institutes that have crazy overheads. All this needs to cut down and make federal research $s more efficient.
No they don’t. Why don’t you name them all and explain where the waste is? I’m sure the troll farm has a list you can block and copy for us.