War and Research funding

[Alvacea]

Working 100 hours/week in the lab, sleeping in the lab and working for peanuts doesn't make you "talented". It makes you willing to be someone elses cheap labor force. Can me snooty, but I have a TON more personal value than that.

Whoa dude. "personal value" <> defenses against exploitation.

Many of these people don't have a choice.. they have to struggle like hell to stay competitive in tenuous situations (think visas) where failure has many more repercussions than for US citizens. And a lot of them don't fully know what they're getting into before they come here.

Let me make this extremely clear. I do not care one bit who your ancestors are. I do not care who your father is. I do not care who your mother is. All I care about is who YOU are, and who my fellow Americans are, regardless of whether they are born here or naturalized. An American is an American is an American is an American.... I am no more American than you, and you are no more American than me. I think your ancestors might be offended that you today are taking credit for their brave actions hundreds of years ago, instead of standing up on your own.

(and before anyone asks, I'm a second-generation American, born and raised).

Well it's good you're finally conceding that it will be a setback. Now all we have to argue about (other than my patriotism and citizenship) is whether or not the setback will be permanent or temporary.

My argument is that most of the postdocs who come here become naturalized US citizens, and in the long term they will aid this country as much if not more than homegrown Americans of lower talent.

Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone else) have statistics for this? I think in recent years there might be a greater proportion of foreign scientists who return to their countries-of-origin... (due to an increase in quality of research there, or rising competition here, etc) though I'm willing to bet that it's still the case that the majority end up settling here.

Let me guess - a naturalized citizen is STILL a foreigner to you? How many generations must my ancestors live here before I can become American?

Off-topic, but I was suddenly reminded of that headline a few years ago.. "American Outshines Kwan" (about Sarah Hughes and Michelle Kwan). Sigh.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[solitude]

In lean financial times, yes AMERICANS should have first dibs on research money and quite honestly there probably aren't many if any, grad students in my department who disagree.

This is an axiomatic statement that flouts the ideal on which our country was founded: equal opportunity (see below). You are free to feel this way, but I simply don't agree with your assumptions (and it seems that few people on this forum do as well, contradictory to the supposed sentiment of the grad students at your particular institution), so I doubt that we will reach a resolution in this disagreement.

Wow! I have relatives going back to Jamestown too and Ghana, and Ireland, and Spain. Hell, we may even be distant cousins and my apologies to anyone who may be hurt by the idea that a minority woman shares ancestors with you so don't worry, I won't "out you" on Oprah Common dude, you didn't think ALL my ancestors arrived in chains did you, Cuz? Quite a few of them were ALREADY here.

Never did I intimate that I would be "hurt by the idea that a minority woman shares ancestors" with me, and I am certainly not hurt by that fact. Your attitude is puzzling; I just don't understand your resentment and your unfounded assertions about my feelings towards you simply because I am not a minority. My ancestors fought and died for your freedom in the Civil War, and I would join them in a heartbeat.

Let's keep America free of xenophobia, racism, and sexism. Let's cure diseases and answer fundamental scientific mysteries. To do so in the shortest amount of time, let's give our public grant money to the most talented researchers and let them work. After all, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal". You, me, and even the foreigner.

 

[Myempire1]

I'm guessing you haven't dealt with many meth cookers have you? Most of them don't know the chemistry involved. Why do you think the labs blow up or catch fire so damn frequently?

One funny thing I heard years back from a chemistry professor is that meth cooks are rarely ever chemists... Most are not thinking about or designing their reactions. In fact, they are more like biologists, who follow simple mini-prep style protocols to get a final product.

(Don't take offense)

 

[DropkickMurphy]

No offense taken.....I'm not a bio major.

Although the idiots who blew up their car because one of them had to smoke (while moving their lab) might have been. A few containers of anhydrous NH3, some toluene, and multiple gallons of hydrochloric acid along with God only knows what else makes for one nasty fire. That's the first time I ever saw human skin dripping off in big glops. *shudders* *******es......

 

[qwopty99]

I don't really want to get too much in this discussion cause I'm not American, but it'd be interesting for you to look at this:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/050425_nd_tables.htm#t1

i just looked at the site. the biggest dumb@ss mis-reprsentation of statistics ever. someone should really let this guy know...

Title of the graph: The Case of the Disappearing (U.S.-born) Doctor

Year/Total MDs/ US-born/Foreign-born/Percentage of foreign out of Total

1970 334,028 276,709 57,319 17.2%
1994 684,414 529,736 154,678 22.6%
2002 874,589 675,886 198,703 22.7%

% increase, 1970-2002
161.8% 144.3% 246.7%

how on earth is this a case of disappearing US-born doctors?

firstly - between 1970 and 2002, there was an INCREASE of almost TWO-HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND US-born physicians! how is that a disappearance? oh - he's talking about percentage... Ok then,

between 1994 and 2002, the percentage of foreign-born MDs went up from 22.6% to 22.7%!! sorry - forgot my statistics - have we broken the null hypothesis? the SAME statistics could be used to argue that the number of foreign-born MDs is going to fall dramatically in the next few years, because between 1970 and 1994, there was a 5.4% increase in their total share of MDs, decreasing only to a 0.1% increase from 1994 to 2002, and if u project these numbers, we'll have ZERO foreign-born MDs in the US in about 40 years!!

lastly, why even have this category of "foreign-born MD"? that could've easily been someone born in England, who moved here when he was 2, then got an MD. why should this person be considered a minority?

using the author's logic, the US-born MD will "disappear" when there is some 100 million US-born MDs out of a population of 1 billion total MDs. i guess that would be considered a disappearance...

 

[mudphud2b]

Let's cast aside some of the mean-spirited rhetoric and focus on the key point of debate: Should the US government fund non-American researchers?

As I wrote earlier, allocating research dollars using a tic-for-tac system (I'll approve your research if you approve mine) is deplorable. NIH grants are NOT a subsidy for researchers, they are the means by which the American taxpayers collectively attempt to discover new things about their world that could lead to the treatment of disease and improve health.

Therefore, the NIH is under no obligation to help American researchers fund their work, support their career, or pay their bills. Funding an American researcher over a non-American with superior work would be a gross violation of the goal of the NIH to cure disease. It would also be an atrocious violation of the trust of the American taxpayer.

Everyone should be able to compete on equal standing for federal funding regardless of their citizenship or country of origin if their project is deemed more worthy of funding. In fact, not only does the researcher not have to be American, but he doesn't even need to live and work in the US. I know foreign researchers who live abroad and only come to the US to apply for grants; this is a perfectly legitimate practice if it advances the goal of the NIH: to make the necessary discoveries to cure disease.

As an American, I am proud to belong to a country able to attract the most talented researchers (or budding researchers) in the world. I consider it an honor that foreign researchers choose to live and work in the US. In fact, many countries whose citizens come to America for research are upset by this "brain drain" and have spent vast sums to try to convince researcher to stay. Research is competitive folks and, since no one can claim a monopoly on scientific discovery, is necessarily an international sport.

If you can't produce research that will advance the goals of the NIH farther than another person (whoever that is), you don't deserve funding.

 

[1Path]

Let's cast aside some of the mean-spirited rhetoric and focus on the key point of debate: Should the US government fund non-American researchers?.

Please reread the title in the original post. This thread is supposed to be about funding issues due to the war.

The real question is, should the US fund foreign scientists in times OF WAR when US students and scientists are lacking funding to conduct their own research?

The answer should be an uneqivocal NO. This is not about racism or any of the other asinine arguments some of you are making this out to be. If foriegn scientists want funding during war, then maybe we should make it contingent upon their sending THEIR young men and women into WAR to help us out.


So for those challenged with poor reading skills, let me state again, THIS IS ABOUT FUNDING OF RESEARCH DURING WAR!!!!

After all, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal". You, me, and even the foreigner.

Didn't a slave owner make this statement?

 

[mudphud2b]

I don't think that the current wars change the mission of the NIH: to make discoveries that cure disease. Everything I said before still applies. Thus, funding an American researcher over a non-American with work that advances this mission farther would be reprehenisible. In fact, I think in times of scarcity of funding, it is even more imperitive that the NIH spends its money in such a way as to advance its goal the furthest per dollar spent.

War or no, NIH funding is not a hand-out for American scientists, but a means by which to make new discoveries and develop cures for disease.

 

[1Path]

I don't think that the current wars change the mission of the NIH: to make discoveries that cure disease. Everything I said before still applies. Thus, funding an American researcher over a non-American with work that advances this mission farther would be reprehenisible.

War or no, NIH funding is not a hand-out for American scientists, but a means by which to make new discoveries and develop cures for disease.

The "international community" doesn't fund the NIH budget. American tax payers do. So its' not a matter of NIH being a handout for American scientists. It's about the fact that American taxpayers, of which American Scientists are a HUGE part, deserve to have their hard earned tax money support their own research.

 

[mudphud2b]

Last time I'm explaining this. American taxpayers fund the NIH to cure disease, not so American scientists can have stable/successful careers. NIH funding is not a welfare program for American scientists. The American taxpayers expect that their money will be put towards curing disease to improve the nation's health. If a foreign researcher has a better project for advancing this goal, the NIH is obligated to fund this project over another.

 

[1Path]

American taxpayers fund the NIH to cure disease, not so American scientists can have stable/successful careers..

When other countries start contributing to the NIH budget, then and ONLY then will they have ANY "right" to receive it as far as I'm concerned.

Your attidute about this is the reason why the US has lost the edge they used to have in the area of sceintific discovery. Just curious, have you ever applied for a grant? Do you plan to have a carteer in academia? Before med school, did you ever work in a lab and I'm not talking about summer research programs? You comments reek of someone who lacks the experience of real world issues where research funding is concerned.

And that whole "cure disease" thing? That's just naive. Most people that have done research into pretty much any disease process KNOWS that at the very best MAYBE you'll discover a way to manage a disease, ie chronically, but cure it? How many diseases that have been studied for a long time actually have "cures"? The majority of cancers? Nope! Diabetes? Nope. Heart disease? Nope. AIDS? Nope. Sickle Cell disease? Nope! ALL of these diseases are MANAGED.

I spent 3 years at the NIH as a fellow and I don't recall a single scientist that talked seriously about "curing" disease. "Curing disease" makes for a good sound bite for political reasons but the reality is VERY different.

From the NIH website:

NIH Mission

NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

While they do make mention of "curing disease" it's FAR from their primary mission where research is concerned.

Now I'm done.

PS- I'm sure your PI would be thrilled to know you consider her/his funding a welfare program.

 

[totalcommand]

Could you respond to my above post please?

I have a few issues here with what you are saying as well.

When other countries start contributing to the NIH budget, then and ONLY then will they have ANY "right" to receive it as far as I'm concerned.

We are not discussing "rights" here. Every dollar a scientist gets is a privilege given by taxpayers. The question is whether more talented foreign scientists deserve that over less talented American ones.

Your attidute about this is the reason why the US has lost the edge they used to have in the area of sceintific discovery. Just curious, have you ever applied for a grant? Do you plan to have a carteer in academia? Before med school, did you ever work in a lab and I'm not talking about summer research programs? You comments reek of someone who lacks the experience of real world issues where research funding is concerned.

These are just irrelevant personal attacks. Maybe we could leave them out in the next go around?

And that whole "cure disease" thing? That's just naive. Most people that have done research into pretty much any disease process KNOWS that at the very best MAYBE you'll discover a way to manage a disease, ie chronically, but cure it? How many diseases that have been studied for a long time actually have "cures"? The majority of cancers? Nope! Diabetes? Nope. Heart disease? Nope. AIDS? Nope. Sickle Cell disease? Nope! ALL of these diseases are MANAGED.

You have a valid point here. But I think it's irrelevant if you look at the NIH mission statement you posted. Nowhere does it mention funding American scientists. In fact, its goals are completely focused on doing science and medicine, not on funding citizens.

I spent 3 years at the NIH as a fellow and I don't recall a single scientist that talked seriously about "curing" disease. "Curing disease" makes for a good sound bite for political reasons but the reality is VERY different.

Fine, but irrelevant.

From the NIH website:

NIH Mission

NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability.

And the best way to pursue this mission is to allow the best scientists from other countries to come here and work hard. They will advance all these goals far more than the average American scientist.

While they do make mention of "curing disease" it's FAR from their primary mission where research is concerned.

Now I'm done.

PS- I'm sure your PI would be thrilled to know you consider her/his funding a welfare program.

Nice, another personal attack in your "PS". Looking at your post history, it seems you've had many run ins with "the law" here , so I'm not surprised.

To clear it up - it is you who is trying to make research funding a welfare program for scientists. mudphud2b was making the point that funding is NOT a welfare program, but a means to realize the NIH's goals.

 

[mudphud2b]

I feel like this is an episode of The West Wing come to life. I don't understand why you feel condescension is necessary to make your point. I'm using the phrase "cure disease" as shorthand. How realistic it is to develop curative therapy is another issue entirely. The argument I'm making is that when faced with the choice of funding better research or funding an American researcher, the NIH should choose the former. And that's what it does!!!

I don't think the NIH is a welfare program. You wrote that you would prefer an American to get funding over a foreign researcher with a better proposal. I wrote that I think your argument that the NIH should fund the American over the researcher with a better proposal is tantamount to arguing that it should be a welfare program. But, thankfully, the NIH doesn't work the way you want it to! And American science is stronger because of it!

 

[1Path]

@ mudphud2b You say I was condensending. Maybe, but the fact is that until you have applied for a grant, or worked for with a PI who had no problems last cycle getting grants and now has difficulties because of the war, or had ANY major role in the grants process, you're simply in NO position to shoot down ANY ideas about what can be done to change the current tide of research funding. Where I come from we call that knowing your place. Just like med students despise hearing premeds talk about how easy med school will be for them because they work, have 5 kids, and raise 10 goats, I imagine very few people currently being affected by the funding crisis would want to hear what you're saying.

You wrote that you would prefer an American to get funding over a foreign researcher with a better proposal. !

Quote me ONE of my posts where I said an American should get funding over a foreign researcher with a better proposal. Just one! Yeah, just what I thought. You don't have one because I never said that. In fact, that has absolutely NOTHING to do what what I did say which you're obviously not interested in. Cool, then lets end our conversation here.

 

[physicsnerd42]

Quote me one of MY posts where I said an American should get funding over a foreign researcher with a better proposal. Just one!

This is but one example:

The real question is, should the US fund foreign scientists in times OF WAR when US students and scientists are lacking funding to conduct their own research?

The answer should be an uneqivocal NO. This is not about racism or any of the other asinine arguments some of you are making this out to be. If foriegn scientists want funding during war, then maybe we should make it contingent upon their sending THEIR young men and women into WAR to help us out.

By saying that American (and by the way, you have a very narrow definition of the word "American" ) scientists are the only ones who should get funding then one of two following statementss must be true:

1. You think that American research proposals are intrinsically better than foreign ones (or at the very least, if, for example, there is room to fund 500 research proposals, then the top 500 American research proposals are ALL better than the best foreign research proposal).

2. You think that worse research proposals from Americans should take precedence over better foreign ones.

One of these two statements must be true to reconcile the above 2 statements you made.

I agree with you to some extent: the US needs a strong supply of scientists to remain the best country in the world to do research. I don't think all those scientists, however, have to be American-born. Just look at NASA: the US wouldn't have made it to the moon (or at least not nearly as quickly) without all the German ex-patriot scientists working here. I'd say Einstein made a pretty significant addition to the scientific talent pool in the US even though he was born in Europe.

Also, the NIH isn't a welfare program for American-born scientists. It is a meritocracy (or at least that's what its mission statement says it's supposed to be supposed to be) where the best research gets funded. Its mandate, as you have pointed out, is fund science to advance scientific understanding for the benefit of everyone (Americans being included in the "everyone" category). The NIH's dollars should go where they will be best used toward this goal, and that place is the laboratories of the best scientists, no matter what their birth certificates say. I don't know why you think that just because the tax dollars come from Americans (and from immigrants like me, by the way, who can also be drafted if congress ever decides to reinstate the draft) that those dollars should only go to Americans. The US government spends money on foreign aid. It also buys supplies from the lowest bidder (be they American or not) so that the tax dollars will be put to the best use. The goal of giving money to the NIH is so that the best science possible can be funded. Distributing that money to only American-born scientists would give less return (aka worse science) for the same amount of money, which would be a disservice to science and to the taxpayers.

So, no, even in time of war, tax dollars for research should go to where they'll be best used, not just to Americans.

 

[1Path]

1. You think that American research proposals are intrinsically better than foreign ones (or at the very least, if, for example, there is room to fund 500 research proposals, then the top 500 American research proposals are ALL better than the best foreign research proposal).

2. You think that worse research proposals from Americans should take precedence over better foreign ones.

.

No, you made an assumptions about my posts because you lack the definitive evidence to support what you're trying to say. The fact is that ANY discussion about which research projects are "better" would require folks with a hellva lot more research experience than the folks around here.

 

[AtmaWeapon]

1Path it would be nice to hear some of your arguments and reasonings for some other points made by other posters. It's nice you're defending your stance and opinion, but you're ignoring a lot of good points made by others and getting caught up with just a poster or two.

Personal attacks or belittling others is not a way to good way to convince people as people have a natural tendency to become stubborn with their own beliefs (ie: books like how to win friends and influence people explain this well.) Yeah, you're not here looking for friends/respect or brownie points, but giving respect to others generally gets you respect back and it's a basic forum etiquette. Maybe you don't think you're being condescending, but getting rid of caps and bold letters are a good start.

Regardless of credibility, whether we've gotten grants, current phd students, or undergrads, we are all adults here interested in research. If you're a veteran in the field, which is really respectable, it would be appealing to us (at least to me) if you were more encouraging and understanding. If you think a poster was condescending to you first, be the bigger person and let it go...don't fight fire with fire. Thank you.

 

[Jorje286]

The fact is that ANY discussion about which research projects are "better" would require folks with a hellva lot more research experience than the folks around here.

As if people are discussing here what kind of projects would be better to fund. In fact, YOU were the only one who did that with your comparison between breast cancer research and breeding behavior of ameoba. Some posters however have put scientific research in a general context and goal.

Let's cast aside some of the mean-spirited rhetoric and focus on the key point of debate: Should the US government fund non-American researchers?

As I wrote earlier, allocating research dollars using a tic-for-tac system (I'll approve your research if you approve mine) is deplorable. NIH grants are NOT a subsidy for researchers, they are the means by which the American taxpayers collectively attempt to discover new things about their world that could lead to the treatment of disease and improve health.

Therefore, the NIH is under no obligation to help American researchers fund their work, support their career, or pay their bills. Funding an American researcher over a non-American with superior work would be a gross violation of the goal of the NIH to cure disease. It would also be an atrocious violation of the trust of the American taxpayer.

Everyone should be able to compete on equal standing for federal funding regardless of their citizenship or country of origin if their project is deemed more worthy of funding. In fact, not only does the researcher not have to be American, but he doesn't even need to live and work in the US. I know foreign researchers who live abroad and only come to the US to apply for grants; this is a perfectly legitimate practice if it advances the goal of the NIH: to make the necessary discoveries to cure disease.

As an American, I am proud to belong to a country able to attract the most talented researchers (or budding researchers) in the world. I consider it an honor that foreign researchers choose to live and work in the US. In fact, many countries whose citizens come to America for research are upset by this "brain drain" and have spent vast sums to try to convince researcher to stay. Research is competitive folks and, since no one can claim a monopoly on scientific discovery, is necessarily an international sport.

If you can't produce research that will advance the goals of the NIH farther than another person (whoever that is), you don't deserve funding.

I think that's a great post that puts the NIH funding in its perspective. And please @ 1Path getting stuck at "curing disease." It was an exageration, but ofcourse the point is that science is primarily funded for its practical applications, and ofcourse one of the most important applications is understanding disease in order to improve human lives. It's not about finding a job for the American scientist. I don't see why that objective should change in times of war, when in fact you'd expect quality of research regardeless of nationality to take an even bigger precedence. Oh and btw, there have been and will be plenty of regular US miliatry operations in the world.

 

[1Path]

And, I think getting the top people from countries outside the US will always be better than getting the middle of the road people here in the US who wouldn't otherwise pursue science.

Just reflecting on the quote which started this firestorm of a debate...............................................

Now maybe the practice of medicine should be "improved" too, so perhaps residencies should be opened up to others the way postdocs have. I think we REALLY need to put a stop to all those "middle of the road" people currently taking up residency spots because we need the "best" people in those spots! Just think if that had happened already, there would have been NO need to adapt an 80 hour work week policy.

I think that's a great post that puts the NIH funding in its perspective. And please @ 1Path getting stuck at "curing disease." .

Everyone else was being literal and presumptive in their posts so I figured what hell, I'll take a stab at it too!

 

[Dr. Dukes]

Please reread the title in the original post. This thread is supposed to be about funding issues due to the war.

The real question is, should the US fund foreign scientists in times OF WAR when US students and scientists are lacking funding to conduct their own research?

The answer should be an uneqivocal NO. This is not about racism or any of the other asinine arguments some of you are making this out to be. If foriegn scientists want funding during war, then maybe we should make it contingent upon their sending THEIR young men and women into WAR to help us out.

So for those challenged with poor reading skills, let me state again, THIS IS ABOUT FUNDING OF RESEARCH DURING WAR!!!!

Interesting story. One of my great-grandfathers was born in Germany, and moved to the US when he was 10-15. He went on to get his BS and PhD in Chemistry at american universities, but didn't end up getting his citizenship until the 1950's. What did he do during WWII? He worked for ONR (Office of Naval Research) doing work on depth charges to destroy German U-boats. Why did ONR hire him? Because he was more qualified than any american citizen who applied for the job. If the ONR (which is part of the DoD and only exists to advance our national political interests) can employ a foreigner, who is still technically a citizen of the country WE WERE FIGHTING, to do research DURING WAR, don't you think the NIH can give money to foreign researchers.

Unless a Chinese post-doc is using american money to do research on a disease that only effects ethnic chinese who have never left mainland china, there is no reason the NIH should care about the nationality of the researcher. The best way to cure disease is to give money to the person with the best project. Just cause your passport says "United States of America" doesn't make you a better researcher.

 

[1Path]

Interesting story. One of my great-grandfathers was born in Germany, and moved to the US when he was 10-15. He went on to get his BS and PhD in Chemistry at american universities, but didn't end up getting his citizenship until the 1950's. What did he do during WWII? He worked for ONR (Office of Naval Research) doing work on depth charges to destroy German U-boats. Why did ONR hire him? Because he was more qualified than any american citizen who applied for the job. If the ONR (which is part of the DoD and only exists to advance our national political interests) can employ a foreigner, who is still technically a citizen of the country WE WERE FIGHTING, to do research DURING WAR, don't you think the NIH can give money to foreign researchers.

If you don't mind, lets' try to keep this argument in the 21st century. I mean, exactly far back are you folks willing to go to make a point, Cromagnum age?

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Really, I don't see how the benefits of health fo the American people by hiring the best people possible are significantly outweighed by the need to support research labor.

Its the same old argument. We gotta support our manufacturing sector, when we really want the highest quality product. for the lowest price.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Whoa.

I think some people here might need a prescription for the following:

Indications: Take as needed to suppress irrational anger and urges for name-calling.

I don't think anyone here wants anything but the best for the country in which they live, work, and dream. There are a lot of good points being made, but recently some things are being said that are purely inflammatory not only to the participants in the thread, but also to others who may be reading. I really love that this forum is one of the most civil agree-to-disagree places I've ever stumbled upon in cyberspace, and it would be awesome if we could all try to uphold that tradition.

I think we're past that now...now it's time for a dose of this:

 

[ThatOne]

If you don't mind, lets' try to keep this argument in the 21st century. I mean, exactly far back are you folks willing to go to make a point, Cromagnum age?

Hey, 1Path, were your ancestors born in the 21st century? That might explain the puerile attitude.

Bobcat 05 that was a pretty interesting story.

Doctor&Geek, trying to support our manufacturing sector hasn't seemed to work out that well. I remember at a recent auto manufacturer's convention, Ford/GM (can't remember which exactly) were talking about "buying American" to support Americans... Toyota's representative followed with a speech about how Toyota's cars have more American-made parts inside them then the leading US brands, and talked about the new plants they are opening up in this country. Investment in foreigners can benefit the country -- oh, and 1Path if you're still reading, I'll point out to you that is this is a 21st century reality, and for good measure here's a decent source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/14/business/cars.php

 

[solitude]

Didn't a slave owner make this statement?

Sigh. Your petulance is exasperating us all.

 

[1Path]

Sigh. Your petulance is exasperating us all.

Hey, you're the one quoting slave owners not me in an attempt to do something......What was your point in using that quote? Next time, try quoting Gandhi or Mother Teressa instead!

 

[solitude]

Hey, you're the one quoting slave owners not me in an attempt to do something......What was your point in using that quote? Next time, try quoting Gandhi or Mother Teressa instead!

Taking the high ground because you can't seem to honestly receive criticism or to abstain from condescending reprisals. Good luck in your career as a physician-scientist--I'm sure your character will serve you well.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Doctor&Geek, trying to support our manufacturing sector hasn't seemed to work out that well. I remember at a recent auto manufacturer's convention, Ford/GM (can't remember which exactly) were talking about "buying American" to support Americans... Toyota's representative followed with a speech about how Toyota's cars have more American-made parts inside them then the leading US brands, and talked about the new plants they are opening up in this country. Investment in foreigners can benefit the country -- oh, and 1Path if you're still reading, I'll point out to you that is this is a 21st century reality, and for good measure here's a decent source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/14/business/cars.php

I was only speaking hypothetically - comparing 1Path's argument above to populist rhetoric which of course only a sullen few in reality subscribes to.

 

[1Path]

Taking the high ground because you can't seem to honestly receive criticism or to abstain from condescending reprisals. Good luck in your career as a physician-scientist--I'm sure your character will serve you well.

Blah, I don't know a person in the research game who can't take criticism. Perhpas you're upset that your post didn't quite gain you the response you were looking for, so my advice to you is that you think about whose point of view you're critisizing first. Quoting a slave owner to make a point about freedom is simply ludicrious, a point that would never be lost on someone as quick witted as I am.

I was only speaking hypothetically - comparing 1Path's argument above to populist rhetoric which of course only a sullen few in reality subscribes to.

Sullen few? I doubt it. Perhpas if the Gov't cut into that MSTP stipend of yours to make sure all the HumV's in Iraq had fortified armour and you didn't have the luxury of begging Mom and Dad to cover you, you'd change your tune. That is assuming you were in the MSTP program for the "right" reasons in the first place.

 

[ThatOne]

Doctor&Geek, thanks for the clarification.

The information I was pointed out was actually for the benefit of 1Path. I am sorry to note, 1Path, that you are only quick witted enough to point out minor inconsistencies in other posts, while ignoring the blatant inconsistencies in your own "quick witted" replies when others point them out to you. You are largely acting like a troll, which sadly robs your more thought-provoking comments of legitimacy.

 

[1Path]

.........is tantamount to arguing that it should be a welfare program. But, thankfully, the NIH doesn't work the way you want it to! And American science is stronger because of it!

This statement kinda has me wondering. Are MSTP programs which guarentee funding for graduate students, welfare programs MD/PhD students? And if not, why not? When the money is awarded, the NIH has NO WAY of guarenting anyone will finish the program and become what they were trained to be.

Given the attrition rate of students in combined programs I'm wondering what happens from a fiscal point of view when a student drops out? Does the money go toward bringing another student in? Does it go back into the NIH MSTP program?

Another question, what about the folks finishing up their program in the next year or so with the current cuts in spending. Should they be obligated to be physician scientists when there doesn't appear to be enough support to go around?

The fact is I've never met an MD/PhD who was so incompetent as to not deserve to have their research funded. So again, NIH should ensure that American appplicants have money over any one else.

 

[Maebea]

Has Neuronix died? Please pull the plug on this thread before someone posts again!

(Certainly not a very democratic sentiment; but what the heck, the Bill of Rights was authored by a slave owner and who fathered children by his slaves, so anything else that he did is suspect and without value. In the same vein, the USPHS' involvement in the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study causes me to wonder how any ethical person can work at the NIH (the NIH is part of the USPHS) or accept funding from this sick and depraved organization. And this Zerhouni guy, he's from Algeria, right? Aren't they part of the "Axis of Evil" that is at war with the US? Does that mean that everyone working at the NIH is complicit in the Al-Queda terrorism that is seeking to destroy the American way of life? Furthermore, where do these American citizens of Japanese descent get off demanding [and receiving] reparations and an apology from the US government for being put in concentration camps during World War II? It doesn't matter that they had been born here and had been outstanding citizens, members of their race had committed an "unprovoked and dastardly act" by bombing Pearl Harbor, so they deserved to be imprisoned. [Disclaimer: These hyperbolic Coulteresque statements are intended in the spirit of irony, and do not represent the true beliefs of the author.])

 

[Neuronix]

My F30 didn't get funded (just missed the score cutoff! Argh!) but I still live. Who were those idiot reviewers anyway? Did they even read my grant? One kept referring to my advisor by a different name.

I dunno, I don't mind letting arguments go. It's just this one thread and I don't think it's that bad. If more people report it though, I'll shut it down.

 

[1Path]

In the same vein, the USPHS' involvement in the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study causes me to wonder how any ethical person can work at the NIH (the NIH is part of the USPHS) or accept funding from this sick and depraved organization. .])

During the time I attended Hopkins a few years ago, the school was cited for conducting unethical studies involving poor minority children and lead based paint. One day while at the NIH, I was "called out" by a MD/PhD student from Howard about it and I have to admit that I did feel a sense of shame. I'm sure there's not a group/school/organization that can say they've never done anything unethical research wise. And in fact, everyone knows that there were black doctors involved in the Tuskegee Expt.

The problem is not in acknowleding that everyone's done it. The problem is in repeating those atorcities in the future.

Furthermore, where do these American citizens of Japanese descent get off demanding [and receiving] reparations and an apology from the US government for being put in concentration camps during World War II? It doesn't matter that they had been born here and had been outstanding citizens, members of their race had committed an "unprovoked and dastardly act" by bombing Pearl Harbor, so they deserved to be imprisoned.

They should have received their reparations, AFTER the decendants of slaves received their's.

 

[1Path]

I dunno, I don't mind letting arguments go. It's just this one thread and I don't think it's that bad. If more people report it though, I'll shut it down.

I think there are some valid points being made on all sides and for the sake of keeping the thread open, I've responded to the NUMEROUS personal attacks and insults primarily by using the ignore function but I did send out 1 or 2 PM's!

Personally, I think the "sticking your head in the sand because I don't want to talk about difficult issues" is one of reasons why post docs salareis are so low, and the job market is so weak in certain scientific areas. But that's cool, because I feel certain that the medical profession won't drop the ball anytimne soon!

And best of luck with your next app! I'll be submitting mine at the end of the month!

 

[QofQuimica]

My F30 didn't get funded (just missed the score cutoff! Argh!) but I still live. Who were those idiot reviewers anyway? Did they even read my grant? One kept referring to my advisor by a different name.

I dunno, I don't mind letting arguments go. It's just this one thread and I don't think it's that bad. If more people report it though, I'll shut it down.

Agree. This thread is pretty tame compared to when the gloves come off in most of the premed forums.

Sorry to hear about your F30, Neuro.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

I'm curious (and so are others in the F30 thread) what the percentage cutoff this year was.

Just to compare, the DOD Breast Cancer Predoc from 2006's cut off was 22%.

 

[solitude]

Has Neuronix died? Please pull the plug on this thread before someone posts again!

(Certainly not a very democratic sentiment; but what the heck, the Bill of Rights was authored by a slave owner and who fathered children by his slaves, so anything else that he did is suspect and without value. In the same vein, the USPHS' involvement in the notorious Tuskegee Syphilis Study causes me to wonder how any ethical person can work at the NIH (the NIH is part of the USPHS) or accept funding from this sick and depraved organization. And this Zerhouni guy, he's from Algeria, right? Aren't they part of the "Axis of Evil" that is at war with the US? Does that mean that everyone working at the NIH is complicit in the Al-Queda terrorism that is seeking to destroy the American way of life? Furthermore, where do these American citizens of Japanese descent get off demanding [and receiving] reparations and an apology from the US government for being put in concentration camps during World War II? It doesn't matter that they had been born here and had been outstanding citizens, members of their race had committed an "unprovoked and dastardly act" by bombing Pearl Harbor, so they deserved to be imprisoned. [Disclaimer: These hyperbolic Coulteresque statements are intended in the spirit of irony, and do not represent the true beliefs of the author.])

Ditto. Also, can somebody tell me how to permanently block a user's posts from appearing?

 

[Neuronix]

Ditto. Also, can somebody tell me how to permanently block a user's posts from appearing?

Click on the person's name, then click to view the user's forum profile. There will be an option to add them to your ignore list. They will never bother you again.

 

[solitude]

Click on the person's name, then click to view the user's forum profile. There will be an option to add them to your ignore list. They will never bother you again.

Thanks!

 

[qwopty99]

First, you aren't qualified to decide what's valuable research and what isn't. Spending $10 billion dollars on a superconducting supercollider might seem like a waste of money to you since all it's good for is giving us a better understanding of particle physics, but particle physics gave us PET, etc. When the electron was discovered it was useless. Now our entire society depends on understanding the electron and putting that knowledge to use with electronics. The point is that you can never know where "useless" research will take us. So, you don't know that research into "the mating habits of ameoba" is more valuable than a little extra research into breast cancer.

i was just re-reading part of this thread. i'd like to mention that this is an outstanding reply.

 

[Neuronix]

I'm curious (and so are others in the F30 thread) what the percentage cutoff this year was.

Just to compare, the DOD Breast Cancer Predoc from 2006's cut off was 22%.

According to the program official, the NINDS doesn't give percentiles on their F series grants. The score cutoff is pretty variable from cycle to cycle.

 

[gbwillner]

Taking the high ground because you can't seem to honestly receive criticism or to abstain from condescending reprisals. Good luck in your career as a physician-scientist--I'm sure your character will serve you well.

No kidding!

 

[1Path]

So this afternoon, I met with one of my contacts at the NIH and learned that some research programs at the NIH have grant acceptance rates as high as 100%! And no these aren't programs for soley for URM's. I think the key is to apply to the "right" programs as far as getting your research funded is concerned.:thumbu

 

[Maebea]

That list would be worth your weight in gold if you would offer it on e-bay. Most of the news for extramural scientists is awful, to wit:

Withdrawal from the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellows (F31)
Notice Number: NOT-EB-07-003
Key Dates
Release Date: March 5, 2007
Issued by
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), (http://www.nibib.nih.gov/)
Effective May 8, 2007, the National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) will no longer participate in the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellows (F31) program announcement PA-07-002, which was released in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on October 6, 2006 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-002.html.

The NIBIB will continue to accept, in accordance with NIH policy, up to two F31 resubmissions after May 8, 2007. Although the NIBIB will no longer accept competing F31 applications after May 8, 2007, it will continue, subject to satisfactory progress, to honor noncompeting F31 commitments.

The NIBIB will continue to participate in the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellowships (F31) to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research program announcement PA-07-106, which was released in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on December 12, 2006 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-106.html

For more information about other NIBIB programs, please see our website at (http://www.nibib.nih.gov).
Inquiries
Richard A. Baird, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Interdisciplinary Training
Natl Inst of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
National Institutes of Health, DHHS

Another indication of the dire funding situation: success rates for K08 awards (which are mentored grants that are precursors to independent funding) went from 59% in 1996 to 35% in 2005.

 

[Vader]

Another indication of the dire funding situation: success rates for K08 awards (which are mentored grants that are precursors to independent funding) went from 59% in 1996 to 35% in 2005.

This is VERY scary for those interested in physician-scientist careers.

Private practice or biotech doesn't look so bad these days...

 

[DogFaceMedic]

Okay, a few things:

First, you aren't qualified to decide what's valuable research and what isn't. Spending $10 billion dollars on a superconducting supercollider might seem like a waste of money to you since all it's good for is giving us a better understanding of particle physics, but particle physics gave us PET, etc. When the electron was discovered it was useless. Now our entire society depends on understanding the electron and putting that knowledge to use with electronics. The point is that you can never know where "useless" research will take us. So, you don't know that research into "the mating habits of ameoba" is more valuable than a little extra research into breast cancer.

Second, I reject the premise that the purpose of research should be to increase the might of America. The purpose of research is to advance the understanding humans have of the universe. Nations rise and fall but science will last as long as humans keep it alive, independent of the nationality of those people. Let the DOD advance US interests and the NIH and NSF advance human understanding.

Last, I take offense to the idea that foreign born scientists are a drain on America. I may have been born elsewhere but I'm in the process of becoming an American citizen and I plan to stay here and do research and mentor scientists here when I'm done with the MD/PhD. You're really trying to tell me that I'm really less valuable than American-born scientist just because I was born 50 miles north of the US border?

It would be nice if gov't trusted our scientific judgement, gave us the funding, and left us alone. But, as long as there are scientists who have wasted so much taxpayer money, the taxpayer gets a say in what we do. Bad scientists have screwed it up for the good ones, just as MDs who padded their bills brought on tighter scrutiny by insurance companies, medicares and more HMOs. So, as long as we use other people's money, we have to be accountable -- political and economic reality.

Agreed: science is not for national power - not the view of other nations like France. There are times when research is needed for national defense, but not its primary purpose. Purpose of science is for humanity first, not knowledge for its own sake. (This might cause some angst.)

Agreed: I don't care where you came from. America is an idea of individual political and religious freedom. This is a good place for it.

 

[1Path]

That list would be worth your weight in gold if you would offer it on e-bay.

For the most part I find scientists types fairly willing to work together and I've certainly done my share over the years to give credit to this idea via 2 sceince and medicine oriented websites which I personally fund and mentoring other students. However, ThatOne sent me a PM that said I am a troll, with my head up my a$$ a sentiment, obviously shared by a few of his croonies in this thread. So I'm thinking why would I potentially help this guy and his groupies? OTOH, given that I'm assumed to be on so many ignore lists, perhpas the wah wah name callers wouldn't see the info anyway! Having said all that there are definitely some folks in the MD/PhD forum it would be worth talking to by PM.

Most of the news for extramural scientists is awful, to wit:

I saw quite a few acceptance rates near the 0% range!

After thinking about this issue while working on my grant application last night it occured to me that the NIH is becoming a lot like Big Pharma, only the really hot topic research projects have a good shot at getting funded.So in a certian sense, I guess I consider myself lucky that I'm studying cancer using cutting edge technologies like siRNA. However as a parent, I'd be particularily distressed if I had a child with a rare medical condition that didn't have much funding support because it wasn't "hot".

Finally, if the gov't doesn't want to make a long term investment in training and supporting scientists, then the future MD/PhD would be insane not to a the very least consider private practice and/or Big Pharma/Biotech as career choices. Someone mentioned manufacturing earlier in this thread. Has anyone else noticed the shear number of made in china stamps there are on goods sold in the US? Better question, does anyone else have a problem with the fact that we don't really "make things" anymore?? Were changing from producers/consumers to consumers so from a fiscal standpoint, how is long is that going to last? First we "lost" manufacturing, now we're losing ground in scientific discovery. What's left?

OK, I'll step of my soap box now!

 

[1Path]

Agreed: science is not for national power - not the view of other nations like France. There are times when research is needed for national defense, but not its primary purpose. Purpose of science is for humanity first, not knowledge for its own sake. (This might cause some angst.).

The "purpose of science is for humanity first" sounds cute and appropriate for a hallmark card, but doesn't jive real well with the reality. In my mind, if science as we know it today were truly for humanity, suffering and dying from cancer wouldn't be a multi BILLION dollor "industry". We'd be spending a multiple BILLIONS of dollars on detection/prevention but as it stands now, that's far from the case. Who decides that screening former smokers on a yearly basis for lung cancer is a "waste"? The former smoker? His Family Practioner? How about the Insurance companies?

From my veiwpoint, science is "for" Big Pharma, followed by insurance companies who use it for it's own personal gain/profits.

 

[Neuronix]

The NIBIB will continue to participate in the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards for Individual Predoctoral Fellowships (F31) to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research program

I was going to cry foul on this until I realized that being from a disadvantaged background I might actually qualify for this grant myself. I wonder if the funding rates on these are higher than if I just resubmitted my F30?