NIH Could Face $6 Billion cut in new budget

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Maybe the plan is secretly longterm population control....


Also seems pretty short sighted to be cutting funding to agencies that protect us from outbreaks.

Members don't see this ad.
 
The answer to all of this is one word: Tanks.

I'm sure there is research in there somewhere... you just need the ammo for creativity...

You work in Zoology. Study animals abilities to camouflage and adapt it to some sort of chemical you can apply to a tank.

You work in Geology. Study some sort of earth compound that can be used to reinforce armor plating.

You work in Engineering. Well that's easy.

Funding. BOOM (literally).

BTW, I'm kinda only partly joking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The answer to all of this is one word: Tanks.

I'm sure there is research in there somewhere... you just need the ammo for creativity...

You work in Zoology. Study animals abilities to camouflage and adapt it to some sort of chemical you can apply to a tank.

You work in Geology. Study some sort of earth compound that can be used to reinforce armor plating.

You work in Engineering. Well that's easy.

Funding. BOOM (literally).

BTW, I'm kinda only partly joking.

Soldiers get z cancer, my drug x has shown some activity against z cancer. Funded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
That's the idea... seriously.

Additionally, several solid tumor cancer therapies are anti-angiogenic, maybe spin that into hemorrhage control...

That's how my PI just got a DoD grant lol. I'll just keep following his example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But actually this is how my lab at the NIH worked. Dat DOD money

Yeah, at my previous institution we had constant emails coming in announcing grants available from the DoD.


I want to do research on emerging ID, mainly the BSL 4 bugs, so that would pretty easily track into anti-bioterrorism research :cool:
 
Plan to Cut Funding for Biomedical Research Hits Opposition in Congress

Update. HHS Sec Tom Price / White House suggest universities pay for "indirect costs" (utilities, computers, data centers etc) themselves instead of using grant money to do so in order to accommodate federal cuts. Claims that private sector doesn't pay for those costs so why should the public sector.
 
Plan to Cut Funding for Biomedical Research Hits Opposition in Congress
Update. HHS Sec Tom Price / White House suggest universities pay for "indirect costs" (utilities, computers, data centers etc) themselves instead of using grant money to do so in order to accommodate federal cuts. Claims that private sector doesn't pay for those costs so why should the public sector.

I mean, putting on my flame-******ant suit here, but this is not so illogical.
I don't think it's any secret that while tuition bills spiral out of control, US universities are spending more and more money on an ever-growing cadre of administrators and expensive facilities perks designed to attract well-heeled parents and donors.

Administrators Ate My Tuition
Administrative Costs Mushrooming — The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

The thing about the indirect costs system is it enables universities to shift a good deal of their administrative and infrastructure costs onto the federal government, freeing up their own funds to do things like hire more adminstrators and build large and appealing alumni centers. I'm not sure why this is necessarily considered to be a good thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The thing about the indirect costs system is it enables universities to shift a good deal of their administrative and infrastructure costs onto the federal government...

They can finance 18% cut entirely by cutting indirects by 50% without touching the directs. #draintheswamp

In fact, they can increase the directs by cutting the indirects even more!

Though if this actually happens, here's my prediction: PIs will be asked to contribute to certain "infrastructure" via direct costs, such as paying from direct costs core facility/animal care/IT support etc., which at times they already do. Maybe they should just ask the PIs to pay for rent too. Right now grants that require less indirects (i.e. computational/human subjects) essentially subsidize grants that require a lot of indirects (i.e. animals, etc.) What universities should really do is to let the PIs manage their own indirect, and keep the leftovers. If Universities really want to become "efficient" shopping malls, they should just push this to its logical conclusion.
 
They can finance 18% cut entirely by cutting indirects by 50% without touching the directs. #draintheswamp

In fact, they can increase the directs by cutting the indirects even more!

Though if this actually happens, here's my prediction: PIs will be asked to contribute to certain "infrastructure" via direct costs, such as paying from direct costs core facility/animal care/IT support etc., which at times they already do. Maybe they should just ask the PIs to pay for rent too. Right now grants that require less indirects (i.e. computational/human subjects) essentially subsidize grants that require a lot of indirects (i.e. animals, etc.) What universities should really do is to let the PIs manage their own indirect, and keep the leftovers. If Universities really want to become "efficient" shopping malls, they should just push this to its logical conclusion.
Universities are not the swamp... all of this constitutes less than 1% of the budget anyways. The actual swamp consists largely of the military industrial complex and Wall Street... If the NIH doesn't cover indirect costs universities will simply need to scale back their facilities, greatly hindering progress. Endowments will not be spent on synchrotrons and the like... And even under the new budget the deficit is THE SAME because of a ****ing WALL and an aircraft carrier (which is def necessary to stop a radical group of geurrilla fighters with nothing but AKs and machetes)! Idk about you but I would rather see my taxes go towards building research labs and related facilities than a stupid wall and an aircraft carrier that we don't need at all...

The budget is most important because it tells us and the world what we as a nation value most, and right now science and education are at the bottom while nationalism rises to the top.
 
They can finance 18% cut entirely by cutting indirects by 50% without touching the directs. #draintheswamp
In fact, they can increase the directs by cutting the indirects even more!
Though if this actually happens, here's my prediction: PIs will be asked to contribute to certain "infrastructure" via direct costs, such as paying from direct costs core facility/animal care/IT support etc., which at times they already do.

I mean, doesn't that make more sense? OK if your project requires 200 mice over 3 years then your grant includes a fee to the animal facility that covers that specific need. I think that makes way more sense than demanding that the federal government hand over 30% of the cost of the grant for private universities to keep the lights on. Can't Harvard pay its own darn utilities bill?

What universities should really do is to let the PIs manage their own indirect, and keep the leftovers.

I think this is infeasible because of the distributed nature of things that are paid for by indirects. How do you determine a given PI's 'own' indirects? I think the indirects system arose precisely because those costs are not attributable to a specific funded project.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Universities are not the swamp... all of this constitutes less than 1% of the budget anyways. The actual swamp consists largely of the military industrial complex and Wall Street... If the NIH doesn't cover indirect costs universities will simply need to scale back their facilities, greatly hindering progress. Endowments will not be spent on synchrotrons and the like... And even under the new budget the deficit is THE SAME because of a ****ing WALL and an aircraft carrier (which is def necessary to stop a radical group of geurrilla fighters with nothing but AKs and machetes)! Idk about you but I would rather see my taxes go towards building research labs and related facilities than a stupid wall and an aircraft carrier that we don't need at all...

The budget is most important because it tells us and the world what we as a nation value most, and right now science and education are at the bottom while nationalism rises to the top.

I don't disagree with you at all but we are not talking about the same thing. Ideologically of course everything you say I agree with. Operationally though what I'm saying is the basic reality. I happen to know the director of a particular NIH IC personally. I was told that the first thing he got when the new admin came on was a requisition of a plan for a 10% budget cut. So you can be angry all you want and sure nothing they do makes any sense, but from a macro perspective you have to plan and figure out what actually is the least painful.

If we were forced to trim the fat i would say:
Indirects have a lot of fat to trim.

In terms of directs: T grants should be the first to go. Overtraining PhDs is a serious issue.

Do a match program for job placement like dermatology. Enforce strict PostDoc time limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I mean, doesn't that make more sense? OK if your project requires 200 mice over 3 years then your grant includes a fee to the animal facility that covers that specific need. I think that makes way more sense than demanding that the federal government hand over 30% of the cost of the grant for private universities to keep the lights on. Can't Harvard pay its own darn utilities bill?

I think this is infeasible because of the distributed nature of things that are paid for by indirects. How do you determine a given PI's 'own' indirects? I think the indirects system arose precisely because those costs are not attributable to a specific funded project.

Agree with you (about Harvard). I'm part being facetious. The thing is the Harvard admins of the world actually represent power centers. They have connections and have lobbies that are actually effective.

I was told at a certain career dev meeting recently that in fact you can calculate and audit each PIs relative indirect. This in fact has led to "strategic planning" for some departments in being able to sponsor certain types of projects vs. other. And this senior person was all like "think about this carefully..." you know what I do so this kind of thing might end up being in my favor but suffice it is to say I've never seen as clearly the way departments operate these days...
 
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/us-house-approves-2018-spending-bills-process-far-finished

House voted today on 2018 budget. Still not finalized for this year, but the more tight-pocketed house of Congress voted to keep science spending about where it is. Overall, a 2.6% increase in basic science funding and a small 1 billion dollar raise for the 2018 NIH budget. However, the bill includes provisions to defund research that involved fetal tissue, defunds payments to global climate change prevention funds, defunds ARPA-E (govt green energy tech incubator) and defunds money to global orgs which provide or give info about abortions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Agree a thousand percent. If there were a 20% NIH budget cut, frankly I think 50% of the T series grants should be cut. PIs should just use their R series grants to hire staff on a temporary basis to do the work like every other normal business. This is also what some of the well known people on the Internet says (DrugMonkey, etc.)

50-80% percent of "training" positions in biomedical research should not exist. The very idea of needing a "postdoctoral fellowship" is pure mythical marketing BS created by lack of funding. You can't possibly learn all the skills, and PIs used to just have collaborators if they don't know something. AS THEY SHOULD. MSTP grads end up doing "some research", but that's because 1) they self select (because of existing wealth) 2) they self subsidize with their poorly paid clinical activities. Ha--Medicare dollars subsidizing biomedical research, clever! This is not a "success"...it's a compromise. Lower tier PhD programs are not worth going to. It's just a fact. Lower tier MD/PhD programs are worth going to, but only because 1) med school is paid for. 2) the MD is worth something. Lower tier PhD programs (I'm talking anything below USNWR 50), except for certain fields (i.e. comp sci, econ, etc.) are basically a worthless waste of time from a financial perspective. Do you know who in the end get faculty positions? 1) wealthy people, who don't really care how much they get paid, so they can afford to apply for grants and fail and fail and fail. 2) people with pedigree and got really lucky. 3) at times, workaholics who have no life outside of work. And even then your chances are very bad if you aren't lucky or don't know the right people. In fact, there are plenty of examples of people who work really hard and don't get anywhere at all and ruin their lives. A few even committed suicide. And of course this rules out women and minorities, because if you grew up poor or need to support/care for a family, how can you possibly be a workaholic and make 42k for 5 years, even if you wanted to, then apply for funding that has a 10% shot that only pays half your salary for another 5 years?

And don't get me even started on "talking to politicians". Politicians have NEVER, EVER, EVER cared one bit about the scientists working in the field. They only care about science because at times (i.e. Alzheimer's, cancer, mental health) serves some PR purpose. Don't you see that whoever Congressman you talked to who seemed "really nice" and friendly to science will NEVER think about you for more than 1 second when they vote? They have much more pressing things to worry about that actually affect their district votes.

The only way science can influence politics is if it organized itself just as any other special interest group. And in order to do that, you have to first become exclusive through licensure, guilding, etc. like the physicians. second, have a lot of money. Which, is feasible in theory, but in practice won't happen for a while since the community frankly lacks leadership.

This. It was something I did not appreciate how biased the physician scientist pathway is to those who are independently wealthy. For those of us who are the first to graduate medical school, go to college, or come from humble backgrounds, it takes a tremendous amount of family and personal sacrifice to make this happen. To tell these individuals to abandon financial security for their family in pursuit of the physician-scientist ideal is unrealistic. Many of my colleagues who are on track to a PI level trajectory lived quite lavishly as students and residents, without reliance or need for the stipend/resident salary for housing, family etc.
 
Top