Pausing the NIH

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
SurfingDoctor

SurfingDoctor

"Good news, everyone"
Verified Member
Physician
Faculty
Verified Expert
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
17,375
Reaction score
60,483

Separately, HHS announced a communications ban through 1 February in a memo issued yesterday. (The Washington Post and Associated Press first reported the memo’s existence.) It orders a stop on the publishing of regulations, guidance documents, grant announcements, social media posts, press releases, and other “communications,” and the canceling of speaking engagements. Any exceptions must be applied for and approved through the president’s appointees.

“This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization,” an NIH spokesperson says.
Click to expand...

Another consequence of the communications pause is a freeze on meetings of federal advisory committees and study sections. NIH today canceled meetings of advisory councils at its dental and bioengineering institutes.
Click to expand...

Hard to know what this really means, though I can't say it's surprising. If my research however involved vaccines, gender, or SES disparities... I would be very nervous for the foreseeable future.

Outside of that though, our entire organization has put on pause clinical enterprise development due to concerns about reductions in research infrastructure.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Fencer said:
Study section review panels were also postponed until after Feb. 1.
Click to expand...
Do you feel that those of us who are earlier in their career should be worried about this (and the general strongly anti-science sentiments of this administration)? I'm typically not one to overreact to news like this, because there's always somebody older who can tell me of a time something terrible happened but everything turned out fine.

But considering I'll be starting a PSTP somewhere this summer, I can't help but feel a bit worried about my chances of securing funding and starting a lab following program completion.

I would love some insight from you and other experienced physician scientists about what you think this will mean for those of us who will be starting postdocs in the next few years.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Even without this vocally anti-science sentiment, it's no secret that science has become more and more competitive and grants don't go nearly as far as they used to. I'm kinda worried that another 4 years of hits could really mess things up.

Hoping somebody can just give me an "oh, you naive millennial...everything will be fine" lol
 
GritsNGuts said:
Even without this vocally anti-science sentiment, it's no secret that science has become more and more competitive and grants don't go nearly as far as they used to. I'm kinda worried that another 4 years of hits could really mess things up.

Hoping somebody can just give me an "oh, you naive millennial...everything will be fine" lol
Click to expand...
It's all pretty cyclical. In 2013, the NIH was hit pretty hard as a consequence of the fiscal crisis of the late 2000s, early 2010s.

Fact sheet: Impact of Sequestration on the National Institutes of Health

FY2013 operating plans, estimated numbers, impact and frequently asked questions.
www.nih.gov www.nih.gov

Though, at least the equity was an across the board cut. I suspect this will be less budgetary (though maybe), and more directed at certain types/subjects of research the NIH performs.

I will say this, at least the nominated NIH director has had extramural NIH funding before. It would be hard to believe he would let or worse, help, sink the ship.
 
GritsNGuts said:
Even without this vocally anti-science sentiment, it's no secret that science has become more and more competitive and grants don't go nearly as far as they used to. I'm kinda worried that another 4 years of hits could really mess things up.

Hoping somebody can just give me an "oh, you naive millennial...everything will be fine" lol
Click to expand...

Honestly it's not good.

A lot of it depends on where you are in your career when the hammer falls. People who are at vulnerable points (e.g. postgraduate training, transitioning to independence, or faculty who are near the end of currently funded project periods) are more likely to get derailed. Others who are in relatively protected phases (people in PhD programs, those in clinical training, or established faculty with funded projects for at least a few years) may be better positioned to ride it out.

GritsNGuts said:
But considering I'll be starting a PSTP somewhere this summer, I can't help but feel a bit worried about my chances of securing funding and starting a lab following program completion.
Click to expand...

Just starting PSTP isn't a bad place to be right now. You have several years of time ahead of you before you need to be competitive for funding. If you focus on productivity during your PSTP, you could be navigating the transition to independence during the next administration, which hopefully will be a bit friendlier to science.
 
Last edited:
It's also becoming very clear that any diversity-focused grants are on the chopping block (NIH diversity supplements). Programs such as SACNAS or ABRCMS with heavy involvement from federal agencies are in trouble.

What's not clear for this forum is how this might affect T32s or any timing or oversight of training grants. Have you (the admins) heard from PO's about what you can or cannot do during this time? Can you promote MSTP or research tracks to schools, especially MSI's? How is this going to affect the Postbac IRTAs or other GPPs? It's safe to say nothing is safe at this point, especially not knowing who is going to lead NIH. Offices for diversity and women's health seem to be mothballed. What is this community (AAMC, HHMI, AAAS) prepared to do?
 
There is a pause in communications. However, historically, government changes very slowly.... They will scrub some words (and change the evaluation criteria), but the primary aim of MSTP T32 is to train the next generation of physician-scientists. There is also a lot of Congressional support for IDEAS States, so I suspect that the LEAD mechanism just gets rebranded.
 
It begins...

Screenshot 2025-02-05 101206.png

burn-elmo.gif
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Buhgsy said:
What impact will this have on MSTP funding? Any ideas?
Click to expand...
While I don't know the specifics, the implications for academics is huge. The overhead of many top institutions, the ones that have MSTPs programs, is going to be reduced by 20% or more. Those lost funds will have to be redirected to revenue generating enterprises... which are not research in any sense.

MSTPs are protected by intuitional T32s (if I recall, that's at least true where I am), but the indirects cover all sorts of stuff (lights, medical waste, animals). Those deficits will have to be made somewhere, likely though direct cost spots that are reduced.

The tech bros literally hit the Achilles heel of academic research. Ironic.
 
This is why the Academic Centers have a society... from a recent email:

The NIH tonight released a supplemental guidance to the NIH Grants Policy Statement stating that facilities & administrative costs (F&A costs, also known as indirect costs) will now be set at a standard rate of 15% for all NIH grantee institutions. According to the guidance, this 15% rate would replace any individually negotiated rates for an institution.
The guidance states that this policy “shall be applied to all current grants for go forward expenses from February 10, 2025 forward as well as for all new grants issued.”
Every year since 2017, the annual spending bill that funds NIH has included language prohibiting the Administration from making changes to F&A cost rates (see language below).

Section 224 of Public Law (PL) 118–47 as carried forward by PL 118-158.
SEC. 224. In making Federal financial assistance, the provisions relating to indirect costs in part 75 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, including with respect to the approval of deviations from negotiated rates, shall continue to apply to the National Institutes of Health to the same extent and in the same manner as such provisions were applied in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017. None of the funds appropriated in this or prior Acts or otherwise made available to the Department of Health and Human Services or to any department or agency may be used to develop or implement a modified approach to such provisions, or to intentionally or substantially expand the fiscal effect of the approval of such deviations from negotiated rates beyond the proportional effect of such approvals in such quarter.

The courts are getting involved, and certainly well schooled and paid lawyers will be defending the establishment... For the young community of aspiring physician-scientists, time is on your side. Be resilient and focus on your work. It is truly unfortunate that unexperienced people were placed into positions to enact changes that have many unintended consequences (i.e.: stop funding USAID and disruption for people in clinical trials or public health vaccination efforts that protect/aid our country). Be mindful the next time that you go to the polling box, and exercise your right (and obligation) to select qualified individuals rather than party.
 
Last edited:
Here is the reasoning from the Office of the NIH Director for this draconian action:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html

However, take on these 2 editorials:

Trump Administration Cuts Put Medical Progress at Risk, Researchers Say
Trump Administration Cuts Put Medical Progress at Risk, Researchers Say
Grants from the National Institutes of Health come with additional money for overhead. A planned $4 billion cut would leave colleges with large budget gaps.
www.nytimes.com
and...

https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/08/nih-indirect-research-cost-rate-cuts-universities-threat/

This is part of the current administration's strategy. Propose chaos with a draconian measure. Let the establishment respond. The establishment believes that this action violated Federal law and is seeking an injunction. After the dust settles, the new NIH director (when confirmed) will place a cap on IDC at 50% or something more reasonable. Then, they will hail their victory on reining the fat and unwarranted spending, while academic researchers will catch a breather. As I said earlier, make sure that you exercise your obligation of participating in the ballot box in 21 and 45 months.
 
Fencer said:
... This is part of the current administration's strategy. Propose chaos with a draconian measure. Let the establishment respond. The establishment believes that this action violated Federal law and is seeking an injunction. After the dust settles, the new NIH director (when confirmed) will place a cap on IDC at 50% or something more reasonable. Then, they will hail their victory on reining the fat and unwarranted spending, while academic researchers will catch a breather. As I said earlier, make sure that you exercise your obligation of participating in the ballot box in 21 and 45 months.
Click to expand...
#1 thing: as soon as you have the proper identification, register to vote. Keep on top of it to be sure your efforts are not negated by some injunction or political manuevering.

If not engaging earlier. make sure you set aside lobbying days not just to DC but to your statehouse. This is especially important for those of you who connect with communities that are adversely affected by state initiatives to divert education funding according to political whims.

Every professional society has a government-relations arm. Subscribe to the advocacy newsletters. Get the phones and emails of representatives from your home area (even if you live in a different state and may have switched your voter registration).
 
While it remains to be seen how things will work out, it’s pretty obvious that a significant portion (and a majority of the voting portion) has no issue burning it all to the ground, the NIH included.

Since those folks see deception everywhere and believe all the misinformation presented to them by rubes and charlatans on the internet, they have little interest it understanding what society gains as society is not their interest. Their interest is themselves. Of course, many of these people are poor and have many hardships, and so it kind makes sense that they don’t care about the consequences, because from their individual point of view, they have nothing to lose.

Anyway, I think irrespective of whether lawsuits are successful or not, things aren’t going to be the same for the foreseeable future.
 
SurfingDoctor said:
While it remains to be seen how things will work out, it’s pretty obvious that a significant portion (and a majority of the voting portion) has no issue burning it all to the ground, the NIH included.

Since those folks see deception everywhere and believe all the misinformation presented to them by rubes and charlatans on the internet, they have little interest it understanding what society gains as society is not their interest. Their interest is themselves. Of course, many of these people are poor and have many hardships, and so it kind makes sense that they don’t care about the consequences, because from their individual point of view, they have nothing to lose.

Anyway, I think irrespective of whether lawsuits are successful or not, things aren’t going to be the same for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
I don't really think the 'rubes and charlatans' would know anything about indirect costs in the research enterprise.

Someone in the know was advising Musk here. The abruptness of the move is creating chaos (as per usual with this administration) but the spirit behind the order isn't something I disagree with.

The IDC thing was always nonsensical. Why should the federal government be responsible for keeping the lights on and the toilets cleaned in private institutions of higher learning?

This is going to hurt me a lot personally but in the grander scheme of things I can't say I'm sorry to see the back side of this particular flavor of fiscal bloat.

Anyway the AMC admins are just going to figure out how to reroute their pound of flesh through the directs. Prices for core services, mouse facilities, sequencing, biorepository, all are going to skyrocket. We will all be paying dean's taxes on our bench space and computers, and all of it will be funnelled into the direct costs. There's never any free lunch, and the admins will always figure out how to win the game.
 
tr said:
I don't really think the 'rubes and charlatans' would know anything about indirect costs in the research enterprise.

Someone in the know was advising Musk here. The abruptness of the move is creating chaos (as per usual with this administration) but the spirit behind the order isn't something I disagree with.

The IDC thing was always nonsensical. Why should the federal government be responsible for keeping the lights on and the toilets cleaned in private institutions of higher learning?

This is going to hurt me a lot personally but in the grander scheme of things I can't say I'm sorry to see the back side of this particular flavor of fiscal bloat.

Anyway the AMC admins are just going to figure out how to reroute their pound of flesh through the directs. Prices for core services, mouse facilities, sequencing, biorepository, all are going to skyrocket. We will all be paying dean's taxes on our bench space and computers, and all of it will be funnelled into the direct costs. There's never any free lunch, and the admins will always figure out how to win the game.
Click to expand...
The rubes and charlatans aren’t Elon Musk. It’s much more pervasive.

And while I’m not saying that indirects shouldn’t be pruned… maybe… the whole infrastructure depends on them. Hell, even clinical projects depend on institutional overhead, from which NIH indirects are part of that pot. Our institution has cancelled or paused clinical projects due to the concern about funding months ago. They were apparently right.

I think it’s the “admins” is a boogeyman. Many, even those in research, have no idea how problematic this will be.
 
Forgive the advocacy post but sharing.
5calls.org

Save NIH and NSF Research Funding ⭑ 5 Calls

On February 7, the Trump administration moved to cut billions of dollars in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science …
5calls.org 5calls.org
 
Fencer said:
Here is the reasoning from the Office of the NIH Director for this draconian action:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html

However, take on these 2 editorials:

Trump Administration Cuts Put Medical Progress at Risk, Researchers Say

Trump Administration Cuts Put Medical Progress at Risk, Researchers Say
Grants from the National Institutes of Health come with additional money for overhead. A planned $4 billion cut would leave colleges with large budget gaps.
www.nytimes.com
and...

https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/08/nih-indirect-research-cost-rate-cuts-universities-threat/

This is part of the current administration's strategy. Propose chaos with a draconian measure. Let the establishment respond. The establishment believes that this action violated Federal law and is seeking an injunction. After the dust settles, the new NIH director (when confirmed) will place a cap on IDC at 50% or something more reasonable. Then, they will hail their victory on reining the fat and unwarranted spending, while academic researchers will catch a breather. As I said earlier, make sure that you exercise your obligation of participating in the ballot box in 21 and 45 months.
Click to expand...
This is pretty text book, and not for the NIH specific issue at hand.

Claim something is awful --> Make some crazy threat to it --> Cooler heads either say "nah" or "look over here, it's a Diet Coke and Big Mac, sir, aren't you hungry? Nom nom" --> Some behind the scenes work where little actually changes --> Claim victory.

They call it "negotiations"... I'm not convinced that true in the least bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tr
Last edited:
thehill.com

Federal judge grants restraining order on NIH funding cuts

A federal judge in Massachusetts has granted a restraining order against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its recent research funding cut after 22 states filed a lawsuit to block the ord…
thehill.com
So apparently for those of us located in the 22 states (including NY, MA, and CA) that are named on the restraining order, it's business as usual. We are continuing to submit applications to the NIH with our regular IDC rate.

For those at institutions located in the other 28 states, it seems like many of them have actually put a hold on all NIH applications. Colleagues who have been preparing R21s and R03s for the Feb 16 (17 ) deadline are being told they cannot submit.

This is an impressive backfire on the red states. Really curious to see how this is going to play out.

PS here are the states participating in the lawsuit. Copied from reddit r/nih

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAI’I, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and STATE OF WISCONSIN
 
tr said:
thehill.com

Federal judge grants restraining order on NIH funding cuts

A federal judge in Massachusetts has granted a restraining order against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its recent research funding cut after 22 states filed a lawsuit to block the ord…
thehill.com
So apparently for those of us located in the 22 states (including NY, MA, and CA) that are named on the restraining order, it's business as usual. We are continuing to submit applications to the NIH with our regular IDC rate.

For those at institutions located in the other 28 states, it seems like many of them have actually put a hold on all NIH applications. Colleagues who have been preparing R21s and R03s for the Feb 16 (17 ) deadline are being told they cannot submit.

This is an impressive backfire on the red states. Really curious to see how this is going to play out.

PS here are the states participating in the lawsuit. Copied from reddit r/nih

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ATTORNEY GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF ILLINOIS, STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE OF COLORADO, STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAI’I, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF MARYLAND, STATE OF MINNESOTA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE OF VERMONT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and STATE OF WISCONSIN
Click to expand...
So the states that aren't a part of this suit are having the funding cut as trump initially planned?
 
tr said:
I don't really think the 'rubes and charlatans' would know anything about indirect costs in the research enterprise.

Someone in the know was advising Musk here. The abruptness of the move is creating chaos (as per usual with this administration) but the spirit behind the order isn't something I disagree with.

The IDC thing was always nonsensical. Why should the federal government be responsible for keeping the lights on and the toilets cleaned in private institutions of higher learning?

This is going to hurt me a lot personally but in the grander scheme of things I can't say I'm sorry to see the back side of this particular flavor of fiscal bloat.

Anyway the AMC admins are just going to figure out how to reroute their pound of flesh through the directs. Prices for core services, mouse facilities, sequencing, biorepository, all are going to skyrocket. We will all be paying dean's taxes on our bench space and computers, and all of it will be funnelled into the direct costs. There's never any free lunch, and the admins will always figure out how to win the game.
Click to expand...
lol wow we are somehow on the same side on this issue.

honestly things haven't been good since 2003, and expanding the budget didn't really improve anything -- it made a lot of things worse.

I'm one of those people who think maybe things should all burn to the ground and just restart from scratch

being a PhD sucks bigly and i wouldn't recommend anyone for that career, and every year people are like next year will be better, and it never ever gets better. It just constantly gets worse. every single year.

being an MD is still pretty awesome comparatively, and hence MD/PhD on the whole is worth your time. as a corollary, please (PLEASE) do a residency. some doctors are bitter, but that's a whole other issue.

if my children decide to pursue a career in basic medical science research I'd need to prep a trust fund (not joking)
 
This is painful from my perspective. There seems to be little appetite for physician-scientists out there in general, and this latest blow reduces even further the grants that we have.

I wish that the indirect cuts would be funneled into more directs by increasing the paylines or adjusting grant caps for inflation, but that does not seem to be the goal.

I've had several institutions tells me that R01 grants aren't meaningful to them anymore. Either you have to get a huge and even more competitive grant, or you still have to practice clinically basically full time and the R01 is like a hobby, despite how hard they are to get and the competition from straight PhDs.

It's hard to imagine a future for 80/20 physician-scientists. The whole NYU MD/PhD debacle sums it up nicely. Academics is about running superbowl ads for specialty care while destroying the physician-scientists of the future.
 

2025 Federal Updates

Tracking Federal Updates Under the New Administration
research.uiowa.edu research.uiowa.edu
At this time, we are taking the following actions:
  • Proposal submissions: Until we have more clarity, we will pause the submission of new NIH grant applications. (Investigators who have an upcoming submission deadline should reach out to the Division of Sponsored Programs to discuss options.)
  • Hiring: We also will pause the hiring of new Graduate Research Assistants unless they are already budgeted as a direct cost on a funded project. If investigators have non-federal sources of funding to hire Teaching Assistants, they may proceed. Faculty recruitment and hiring of personnel should be considered carefully in coordination with unit/collegiate leadership.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Neuronix said:
This is painful from my perspective. There seems to be little appetite for physician-scientists out there in general, and this latest blow reduces even further the grants that we have.

I wish that the indirect cuts would be funneled into more directs by increasing the paylines or adjusting grant caps for inflation, but that does not seem to be the goal.

I've had several institutions tells me that R01 grants aren't meaningful to them anymore. Either you have to get a huge and even more competitive grant, or you still have to practice clinically basically full time and the R01 is like a hobby, despite how hard they are to get and the competition from straight PhDs.

It's hard to imagine a future for 80/20 physician-scientists. The whole NYU MD/PhD debacle sums it up nicely. Academics is about running superbowl ads for specialty care while destroying the physician-scientists of the future.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What do you mean by 'aren't meaningful to them'? In terms of tenure, paying your salary, supporting your lab, or what? There just aren't a lot of huge and even more competitive grants out there.

I agree with your conclusions.
 
tr said:
I don't really think the 'rubes and charlatans' would know anything about indirect costs in the research enterprise.

Someone in the know was advising Musk here. The abruptness of the move is creating chaos (as per usual with this administration) but the spirit behind the order isn't something I disagree with.

The IDC thing was always nonsensical. Why should the federal government be responsible for keeping the lights on and the toilets cleaned in private institutions of higher learning?

This is going to hurt me a lot personally but in the grander scheme of things I can't say I'm sorry to see the back side of this particular flavor of fiscal bloat.

Anyway the AMC admins are just going to figure out how to reroute their pound of flesh through the directs. Prices for core services, mouse facilities, sequencing, biorepository, all are going to skyrocket. We will all be paying dean's taxes on our bench space and computers, and all of it will be funnelled into the direct costs. There's never any free lunch, and the admins will always figure out how to win the game.
Click to expand...
nice post. It IS conceivable that actions such as this could lead to appropriate trimming of AMC fiscal bloat. E.g., why shouldn't the NIH impose a salary cap on administrators, if there is one on investigators?
 
I wrote this in the radonc forum- thought it may stimulate discussion here:

Academic labs are run like fiefdoms. Everyone PI has their own area of focus. There is nothing streamlined for cohesive efforts (like SpaceX for example)- it's not designed to have the best people come together to make amazing short-term progress. Because everything is so spread out, there is tremendous waste, if waste is defined as excess money spent that is not progressing things at what could be done in a more efficient model. Every university has dozens of core facilities, and almost all of them suck. Wouldn't it be more efficient to focus on a few, excellent core labs throughout the country (except for those that can be justified on-site like mouse facilities)? Every university has hundreds of faculty that produce nothing of long-lasting value (mostly incremental advances that never progress to new standards of care).

I hope some of the federal changes stimulate a revamp of how research is conducted. The current model gets credit for occasional discoveries that have outsize impact like immunotherapy (from << 1% of labs). It should be obvious that better systems could be designed - and I hope these initial changes move things in the right direction. Universities should select specific focus areas and build teams (PIs now working collaboratively) around those areas - and compete for big grants as universities, bench to clinic translational work (like pharma). NIH/HHS can more easily keep track of progress. Less work is meaninglessly replicated. Less trash science. More high-level focus on high priority work, with competition between universities (not PIs) to compete for who gets to do it.

This model does not currently exist (except in weaker forms in pharma & spore grants). The expenditure to progress ratio for this type of work would be exceptionally higher than things are now. Get rid of the fiefdoms.

Note: I run a translational research lab (discovered new drug target) ... and I'd much rather work in a system where an entire well-oiled ecosytem was in place to translate discoveries (domain experts and funding in place at all levels to run each next-step). Individual labs or departments are not setup well at all to do this in the current system, which adds tremendous cost, especially wasted time fighting for funding at each step. I come from a background where I idolized the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories of old and classical science... and I do this type of work now... but the current system is not sustainable or efficient for generating real progress.
 
StIGMA said:
I wrote this in the radonc forum- thought it may stimulate discussion here:

Academic labs are run like fiefdoms. Everyone PI has their own area of focus. There is nothing streamlined for cohesive efforts (like SpaceX for example)- it's not designed to have the best people come together to make amazing short-term progress. Because everything is so spread out, there is tremendous waste, if waste is defined as excess money spent that is not progressing things at what could be done in a more efficient model. Every university has dozens of core facilities, and almost all of them suck. Wouldn't it be more efficient to focus on a few, excellent core labs throughout the country (except for those that can be justified on-site like mouse facilities)? Every university has hundreds of faculty that produce nothing of long-lasting value (mostly incremental advances that never progress to new standards of care).

I hope some of the federal changes stimulate a revamp of how research is conducted. The current model gets credit for occasional discoveries that have outsize impact like immunotherapy (from << 1% of labs). It should be obvious that better systems could be designed - and I hope these initial changes move things in the right direction. Universities should select specific focus areas and build teams (PIs now working collaboratively) around those areas - and compete for big grants as universities, bench to clinic translational work (like pharma). NIH/HHS can more easily keep track of progress. Less work is meaninglessly replicated. Less trash science. More high-level focus on high priority work, with competition between universities (not PIs) to compete for who gets to do it.

This model does not currently exist (except in weaker forms in pharma & spore grants). The expenditure to progress ratio for this type of work would be exceptionally higher than things are now. Get rid of the fiefdoms.

Note: I run a translational research lab (discovered new drug target) ... and I'd much rather work in a system where an entire well-oiled ecosytem was in place to translate discoveries (domain experts and funding in place at all levels to run each next-step). Individual labs or departments are not setup well at all to do this in the current system, which adds tremendous cost, especially wasted time fighting for funding at each step. I come from a background where I idolized the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories of old and classical science... and I do this type of work now... but the current system is not sustainable or efficient for generating real progress.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there is an ideal system. While I agree that there is a lack of integration even within universities and medical systems and the siloed approach leads to slow progress (I wouldn't define that as waste though), I think only having centers that exist at specific universities would probably be okay for PhDs who want to pursue that specific thing. It wouldn't work at all for physician-scientists. If I had expertise in X or Y but that university system doesn't need a PICU doctor currently, then I just give up research? I suppose that wouldn't be the end of the world, but that kind of system would essentially be the end of the physician-scientist. So then you'd have basic scientists plugging away at whatever protein and physicians "publishing" retrospective garbage studies and there would no progress. The physician-scientist allow for integration between those two worlds. In fact, I think, at least in my opinion, that is their primary role/function.

And I don't know where you are, but I like our core systems. They have technical and knowledge based expertise that I don't. I suppose it could be outsourced to private companies, however when I've tried to get private quotes, they are always much more expensive than using core systems. However, I do bet core systems have a lot of downtime because 1) you generally batch samples/data and 2) they are expensive. I don't know how you could make that better, unless somehow core systems were centralized at specific universities and there was some sort of sharing agreement. Maybe that already exists?

I certainly have some issues with things that do get funded. Do we need a bunch of NIH-funded social science studies? Do we need NIH-funded clinical trials? The list could go on and on, but in my mind, the NIH should be focused on basic-translational discoveries. The implementation should be left up to pharma, who BTW, don't generate any hypotheses or discoveries (like NIH funds do), but are instead in the business of adapting discoveries and hypotheses to make a profit.

Lastly, I think the issue of "slow progress" is just that, it's slow because 1) the easy sh-t has already been figured out, 2) its expensive and 3) human biology is super fu-king complex. Every piece of research is like adding a small LEGO brick is a 1x10^1000 piece castle. At least in my own field, I constantly think about -omic data and the NIH's shift toward that, instead of basic science. Most of that -omic data tells you have protein, mRNA, or metabolite that is high in a patient who you've already identified as ill or with a disease. But it doesn't tell you why or how. And without knowing that, there will never be any new innovations in treating disease. Thus, you need that slow, methodical science in the background to fill in that gap.
 
Last edited:
tr said:
Funding freeze confirmed illegal; NIH resumes all disbursements

popular.info

BREAKING: NIH admits funding freeze is illegal, will resume issuing grants

An internal memo issued February 12 was obtained by Popular Information.
popular.info popular.info
Click to expand...
That's a little good news. I'm still concerned about all the other shenanigans though. Delayed council meetings, staff reductions, potential changes in any funding without the intention of reinvestment. I have like 3 grants pending council review... all of whose councils were postponed till some unspecified future date.

I realize that people voted for chaos... but it certainly is hard to make future plans that way. NIH funding is haphazard enough... it doesn't need more wrenches thrown at it.
 
SurfingDoctor said:
That's a little good news. I'm still concerned about all the other shenanigans though. Delayed council meetings, staff reductions, potential changes in any funding without the intention of reinvestment. I have like 3 grants pending council review... all of whose councils were postponed till some unspecified future date.

I realize that people voted for chaos... but it certainly is hard to make future plans that way. NIH funding is haphazard enough... it doesn't need more wrenches thrown at it.
Click to expand...
Speaking of little faith...
apnews.com

Vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is sworn in as Trump's health chief after a close Senate vote

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been sworn in as President Donald Trump’s health secretary. The Senate on Thursday confirmed him, voting 52 to 48.
apnews.com apnews.com

So much buffoonery.
 
In the last two days, we have had two additional resignations/retirement at NIH top leadership - Dr. Lawrence Tabak, a former acting NIH director for about 3 years and a clinician-scientist (DDS/PhD), and Dr. Michael Lauer, a cardiologist and the deputy director of the National Institutes of Health's extramural research until the end of this week. Dr. Lauer was a proponent of increased transparency of the NIH review process and wrote often in his NIH blog about the role of physician-scientists.

www.statnews.com

Second top NIH official, who oversaw awarding of research grants, departs abruptly

Michael Lauer, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health’s extramural research, will leave the agency at the end of the week.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com
 
Fencer said:
In the last two days, we have had two additional resignations/retirement at NIH top leadership - Dr. Lawrence Tabak, a former acting NIH director for about 3 years and a clinician-scientist (DDS/PhD), and Dr. Michael Lauer, a cardiologist and the deputy director of the National Institutes of Health's extramural research until the end of this week. Dr. Lauer was a proponent of increased transparency of the NIH review process and wrote often in his NIH blog about the role of physician-scientists.

www.statnews.com

Second top NIH official, who oversaw awarding of research grants, departs abruptly

Michael Lauer, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health’s extramural research, will leave the agency at the end of the week.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com
Click to expand...
Not OPEN MIKE! I live for those blog posts!
 
Fencer said:
In the last two days, we have had two additional resignations/retirement at NIH top leadership - Dr. Lawrence Tabak, a former acting NIH director for about 3 years and a clinician-scientist (DDS/PhD), and Dr. Michael Lauer, a cardiologist and the deputy director of the National Institutes of Health's extramural research until the end of this week. Dr. Lauer was a proponent of increased transparency of the NIH review process and wrote often in his NIH blog about the role of physician-scientists.

www.statnews.com

Second top NIH official, who oversaw awarding of research grants, departs abruptly

Michael Lauer, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health’s extramural research, will leave the agency at the end of the week.
www.statnews.com www.statnews.com
Click to expand...
On the surface, it looks like Lauer got kicked out for issuing the memo to resume funding disbursements (BREAKING: NIH admits funding freeze is illegal, will resume issuing grants)
 
www.nature.com

Revealed: NIH research grants still frozen despite lawsuits challenging Trump order

The Trump administration is exploiting a loophole to keep a funding freeze in place, leaving researchers in limbo.
www.nature.com www.nature.com

I'm having to reduce effort on a grant to cover a post-doctoral position with 3 grants under review. What a mess. This however is exactly why it is good to have an MD and not just a PhD. The later group is always going to be f-ed when you elect Mr. Chaos to drive the boat.
 
Confirmation across multiple sources on various social media platforms of the following:
- All T32s (including MSTP obviously), many F30 & F31's, and most center awards (P grants) have been terminated at Columbia

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LowGradeInflammation
NIH Postbaccalaureate Program + Questions
Replies
1
Views
887
VaultArmitage
VaultArmitage
Mr.Smile12
NIH OxCam track
Replies
5
Views
2K
Adedoyinpi
A
SurfingDoctor
Changes to the NIH Peer Review Process
Replies
7
Views
2K
Neuronix
Neuronix
Fencer
2023 NIH GP Fair - hybrid
Replies
9
Views
2K
okbuy37
okbuy37
Fencer
2022 NIH Graduate/Professional Fair (NIH GP Fair) - free to all
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fencer
Fencer
Top