As Trump Targets Research, Scientists Share Grief and Resolve to Fight
At a conference in Boston, the nation’s scientists commiserated and strategized as funding cuts and federal layoffs throw their world into turmoil.
https://archive.ph/70M4F#selection-4815.256-4829.393
2 Likes
Paul
#24
NASA hasn’t done anything useful since 1969 - Musk has made all the tech advancements
DARPA last big deal was the internet - 1960’s
pharma - drugs that poison us or keep us sick
And don’t even get me started on climate science - 100% fraudulent
No thanks
5 Likes
PBJ
#25
If drugs are poison, why do you take rapamycin? Poison is ok when it benefits you? Besides that, you seem like you are a real delight.
10 Likes
RapaW
#27
The issue is who’s to say what research is worth funding and which is “bloat”? Under the pretense of efficiency we are now watching in real time the partial dismantling of US research capacity.
3 Likes
You don’t understand, if it’s unpopular medication not intended for its original use it’s suddenly a-okay.
2 Likes
AnUser
#29
Seems to be many such cases
2 Likes
shc
#30
The solution to ‘bad’ science (if any) is better science.
Not taking a machette and going back to the middle ages!
What kind of techno-optimism is it to totally dismiss the very source of technology?!
And the folks who are cutting funding haven’t the slightest clue about how scientific progress takes place. Relevant to this forum, look at how rapamycin was discovered (soil in a random island), how GLP-1 agonists were discovered (from Gila monster venom), how pennicilin was discovered, etc. These guys would have ridiculed and furloughed such “pointless research.”
Even those who point out potential inefficiencies in science are scientists, and they are being sacrificed by the administration. The fact that science nitpicks and criticizes itself is an important feature of science, and this feedback loop has kept the scientific enterprise going for quite a long time.
7 Likes
Yes - this looks much more like a “hachet job” or politically motivated cuts and budget slashing rather than a thoughtful effort at efficiency improvement. Its easy to break things, much harder to build or refine things. This seems likely to have long-term, negative impact on all areas of science, including longevity science.
6 Likes
Beware those who speak in absolutes.
“most studies are trash and the government has not business in science”
“100% fraudulent”
“drugs that poison us or keep us sick”
12 Likes
George
#34
The overheads partly allows researchers to do less teaching and free up more time for critical research. If you slash the overheads a lot, the research heads will have to spend more time teaching and focus less on research which will have a very bad, if not disastrous, outcome
5 Likes
JuanDaw
#35
If there is one thing that will push a substantial chunk of the major science to China its probably a move like this, and as you’ve seen in jobs, they don’t easily come back to the US after outsourcing.
American talent would be a rich harvest for research orgs where English is spoken. Offhand, am thinking of Singapore, and Karolinska in Sweden.
2 Likes
Longevity research getting hit hard by the new changes. Just in from Eric Verdin:
Dear Buck Community,
As you have probably heard, the Trump administration has issued new guidance from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that will have a major and potentially devastating impact on universities, hospitals and research institutes across the country. As President and CEO of the Buck Institute, which would be extremely hard hit should this guidance stand, I want to take the opportunity to fill you on the situation.
The guidance issued by the NIH on February 7 lowered the standard indirect rate to 15% for all NIH grants. Indirect costs, also known as Facilities and Administration or F&A costs, are critical to a research enterprise; indeed they make the research possible. These costs cover everything from shared lab equipment, cloud computing, hazardous waste disposal, and maintenance of high tech equipment to hiring, grants administration and janitorial services, as well as essentials like electricity, air conditioning and heat. Indeed, I would argue that the term “indirect costs” is a misnomer as science would be impossible without these elements. As of now, the policy change is on hold since a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order. A hearing is set for February 21.
This past week I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Select Committee on Aging at a hearing on “Optimizing Longevity: From Research to Action.” I was pleased to have the chance to speak about how the NIH is the crown jewel of scientific research worldwide, and how essential is to maintaining America’s leadership position in scientific and medical discovery. Below is an exchange I had with Maryland Senator Angela Alsobrooks.
We have met with our government officials and will continue to relentlessly advocate for our ability to continue to do groundbreaking science. Any reduction in the NIH indirect cost rate would be the end of business as usual at the Buck. There would be program reductions, layoffs and, inevitably, just as research on aging is translating discoveries into therapeutics, a dramatic slowdown in getting potentially lifesaving drugs to patients.
We appreciate your continued support and will keep you apprised of this most unfortunate situation. Please know that we are doing everything possible to continue and advance the Buck’s important work.
Eric Verdin, MD
President and CEO
8 Likes
And another longevity researcher:
4 Likes
AnUser
#38
Sabine Hossenfelder who has written about trash science funding vehemently disagrees with this sudden cut to 15% as well, it needs to slowly decrease over time at best.
4 Likes
Before we gnash our teeth, name a specific NIH or other health program that has been defunded. Why are you worried that your program is going to be defunded? Maybe you know that it is nothing the taxpayers would fund if they knew about it.
If your favorite program has been defunded, make an argument as to why the government should fund it as opposed to private funding.
Research that is on the margins of immediate societal benefit or practical application should be supported by other channels, including private endowments, crowd-sourcing, or organizations with goals compatible with such research.
Taxpayers do not need to fund shrimp-on-treadmills studies.
3 Likes
AnUser
#40
This affect all grants, it cuts indirect costs from average 27% to 15% without time to adjust.
7 Likes
I suspect virtually all longevity research would fall under this classification… there are no immediate returns on longevity research, or related basic research…
6 Likes
WJ_PhD
#42
Nothing has been specifically defunded yet but that is because a Federal judge placed an injunction on the proposed cuts. The initial hearing is Friday the 21st.
Here’s an example of what’s at stake for those of us interested in longevity research. The recent $7 million dollar grant to Univ. of Texas (UT) from NIH for the TRIAD study (Rapamycin in dogs) that was just awarded would still receive its $7M funding to do the direct work of the proposal. This goes to the Principal Investigators (Professors and MDs). However, the university, UT would no longer receive all the indirect funding (so called indirects) that they would have used to support the clinical trial.
The current UT indirect rate is 58.5% and that would be cut to 15%. So for a $7M dollar grant, the university, UT, would lose approximately $3.1 million per year in indirects used to support the clinical trial and so UT administrators would likely have to curtail the study.
Indirects have been used and in place since the 1947 when research started to really grow in the US.
7 Likes
Trump is “moving fast and breaking things”
Running public authorities is frustrating compared to private companies (i have done both).
However, there is a limit as to how successful it can be. This is not a forum in which to discuss this in any detail.
I would myself expect some of the indirect costs to be directly invoiced which will increase admin costs.
4 Likes
