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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NIH set up an entire new office separate from EEO for DEI. It's a waisted office with wasteful positions.

Not a new office, just renamed. EEO under EDI and there are less than 30 employees in EDI.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NIH set up an entire new office separate from EEO for DEI. It's a waisted office with wasteful positions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re coming for the NIH.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5183014

Historically both parties have treated the NIH well.

Have there ever been MAGA republicans before?

They need to get people like DeSantis (Florida gets ton of NiH research grants) and the wounded warrior folks on this, plus any R congressmen with family members with cancer or spinal cord injuries. Historically it has been very successful to get conservatives who have an interest in this area to put personal pressure and put a face on it.

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