Anonymous wrote:
What the fuck is wrong with you? The NIH has value in terms of fighting diseases, etc. It is not a jobs program. It learns things to keep people alive. I am alive because of things learned at NIH.

Well, then say so but stop making the usual argument that
"Junior scientists, already struggling in a highly competitive atmosphere, may not get a chance to have an academic career."
As I wrote, the funding for massive and excessive graduate student and postdoc training (mandatory in essentially every NIH grant to be funded) is the # 1 cause for most "trained" struggling so much to have a career
using that training (academic or not).
So here: cut the about 30% of NIH budget that funds such "training" and keep and actually increase other expenditures (equipment, reagents, salary support for PIs and staff with PERMANENT positions, conference and field work travel, etc.)
Deal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NIH doubled the budget in late 1990-s. It has marginally helped the biomedical Ph.D employment for a few years, then it became a lot worse once the increases stopped.
Why would it differ this time? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity as we know.

Not continuing to grow the budget caused a lot of issues for biomedical science employment once the increases stopped. However, what the new budget proposes is much worse. It's not slowing down the rate of budget growth or even freezing it (which already causes problems), it's cutting the budget.

The single best thing for LONG-TERM employment prospects in biomedical scientists would be ABOLISHING NIH altogether (or at least any expenditures toward student and postdoc funding).
That would eliminate the external non-market funding for training hordes of students and postdocs (mostly from abroad) and the only training would be based on real market demand.
As is now the case with MDs, RNs and other medical specialties, JDs, and business Ph.Ds that all enjoy excellent career prospects with much demand and great salaries.
Of course, those already "trained" and looking for a job would be screwed. But that is the ONLY way to bring the system to stable equilibrium.
The other way is to increase funding by ~20% annually in perpetuity, so that most trained can find a permanent job. That is how the system worked well from 1940-s to 1970-s,
but that obviously can't continued indefinitely and did not.
ABOLISH NIH!

What the fuck is wrong with you? The NIH has value in terms of fighting diseases, etc. It is not a jobs program. It learns things to keep people alive. I am alive because of things learned at NIH.

Anonymous wrote:

NIH doubled the budget in late 1990-s. It has marginally helped the biomedical Ph.D employment for a few years, then it became a lot worse once the increases stopped.
Why would it differ this time? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity as we know.

Not continuing to grow the budget caused a lot of issues for biomedical science employment once the increases stopped. However, what the new budget proposes is much worse. It's not slowing down the rate of budget growth or even freezing it (which already causes problems), it's cutting the budget.

The single best thing for LONG-TERM employment prospects in biomedical scientists would be ABOLISHING NIH altogether (or at least any expenditures toward student and postdoc funding).
That would eliminate the external non-market funding for training hordes of students and postdocs (mostly from abroad) and the only training would be based on real market demand.
As is now the case with MDs, RNs and other medical specialties, JDs, and business Ph.Ds that all enjoy excellent career prospects with much demand and great salaries.
Of course, those already "trained" and looking for a job would be screwed. But that is the ONLY way to bring the system to stable equilibrium.
The other way is to increase funding by ~20% annually in perpetuity, so that most trained can find a permanent job. That is how the system worked well from 1940-s to 1970-s,
but that obviously can't continued indefinitely and did not.
ABOLISH NIH!

NIH doubled the budget in late 1990-s. It has marginally helped the biomedical Ph.D employment for a few years, then it became a lot worse once the increases stopped.
Why would it differ this time? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity as we know.

Not continuing to grow the budget caused a lot of issues for biomedical science employment once the increases stopped. However, what the new budget proposes is much worse. It's not slowing down the rate of budget growth or even freezing it (which already causes problems), it's cutting the budget.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/opinion/why-trumps-nih-cuts-should-worry-us.html?_r=0

Harold Varmus has written a decent opinion piece on he proposed budget cuts to NIH. Gives a good overview of how NIH budget works with federal appropriations.

More of the same.
"Junior scientists, already struggling in a highly competitive atmosphere, may not get a chance to have an academic career.
Senior investigators might need to lay off staff, disrupting research teams and leaving projects unfinished."

NIH doubled the budget in late 1990-s. It has marginally helped the biomedical Ph.D employment for a few years, then it became a lot worse once the increases stopped.
Why would it differ this time? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity as we know.

In contrast, there is no National Institute for Financial Research or National Institute for Legal Studies awarding postdoctoral grants and awards to
new business Ph.D and J.D and young faculty in business and law schools. Somehow those "junior scientists" start their academic careers just fine,
in fact they are commonly fought over by multiple schools at 100K+ assistant professor salaries right after Ph.D with no postdoc.

Why is that the case? Largely exactly because there is no NI... to fund the "training" of graduate students and postdocs in the field
beyond the demand of real economy. People are self-funded (which they would not do without a strong chance for a lucrative job),
paid by the departments as TA (with few limited spots based on real educational demand), or sponsored by employer based on real need for that qualification.
If an external entity stimulates the supply by funding the "training", the product price is permanently depressed - this is basic economics.
But they think the solution is to put even more money into supply.
That is what NIH grant PIs do: fund more students and postdocs (NIH does not pay to create more tenure-track academic positions).

Anonymous wrote:I overhead two grandmas talking on the metro about NIH budget cuts and it went somewhat
like this:
"I don't care if they cut their budget, after all they do nothing all day but clone ships, pigs and experiment on poor cats and dogs.
Why do we need that?
What?
They experiment on cats!
Cats? Oh no, that is good for cats if they cut the budget then.
And dogs! Yes, and dogs too! Good for dogs.
What do they really do there?
I don't know, something with health.
Health? Like what?
I don't know some big experiments.
Really? And they still did not invent cure for diarrhea and cold?
Experiments my astrology.


I had to get off but could not stop laughing for hours.

This is hysterical. Thanks for sharing!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/opinion/why-trumps-nih-cuts-should-worry-us.html?_r=0

Harold Varmus has written a decent opinion piece on he proposed budget cuts to NIH. Gives a good overview of how NIH budget works with federal appropriations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research should be in the private sector

Ok - orphan diseases - too bad, not profitable to find a cure - you are out of luck. Vaccines - nope - not profitable.

??? not profitable?

+1 LOL go educate yourself, pediatricians even get major kick backs/incentives just on of % of fully vaccinated patients. The whole vaccination schedule is highly negligent as there are no consequences for malpractice. I am confident Dr. Humphries will bring much needed light to Capital Hill.

Anonymous wrote:20,000,000,000,000 $ in debt but nothing to cut

Sorry don't believe it

But overall his budget proposal cuts nothing. It moves money to defense. So where are these cuts you're talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Research should be in the private sector

Ok - orphan diseases - too bad, not profitable to find a cure - you are out of luck. Vaccines - nope - not profitable.

??? not profitable?

I overhead two grandmas talking on the metro about NIH budget cuts and it went somewhat
like this:
"I don't care if they cut their budget, after all they do nothing all day but clone ships, pigs and experiment on poor cats and dogs.
Why do we need that?
What?
They experiment on cats!
Cats? Oh no, that is good for cats if they cut the budget then.
And dogs! Yes, and dogs too! Good for dogs.
What do they really do there?
I don't know, something with health.
Health? Like what?
I don't know some big experiments.
Really? And they still did not invent cure for diarrhea and cold?
Experiments my astrology.


I had to get off but could not stop laughing for hours.

Anonymous wrote:20,000,000,000,000 $ in debt but nothing to cut

Sorry don't believe it

as soon as a single dollar is added to the budget it becomes absolutely necessary and cutting it back endangers nobel-prize winning research. puh-lease.

20,000,000,000,000 $ in debt but nothing to cut

Sorry don't believe it

Anonymous wrote:here are some of the expenses: the admin oversight -- invoicing, compliance. That is more than 20% of the grant. What about student/postdoc benefits? What about 401K match (I am assuming the faculty insurance is covered by the 9 month salary).

What about the cost of bidding on proposals.

What about keeping the records after the proposal? The contract is with the institution, not the PI. If the PI leaves, the university needs to keep the records.

This shit ain't free.

Once more: all benefits (faculty and students) are included into FRINGES, not overhead.
E.g., my summer salary is FIRST multiplied by 1.30 to cover health insurance, life insurance on the additional salary, 401(K) match, employer contribution to SS and Medicare,
and unemployment insurance contribution to the state fund. THEN the total is multiplied by OH rate (say 1.60).
The first is no problem, the second is.

here are some of the expenses: the admin oversight -- invoicing, compliance. That is more than 20% of the grant. What about student/postdoc benefits? What about 401K match (I am assuming the faculty insurance is covered by the 9 month salary).

What about the cost of bidding on proposals.

What about keeping the records after the proposal? The contract is with the institution, not the PI. If the PI leaves, the university needs to keep the records.

This shit ain't free.