login
How sequestration is impacting research 2013
-
No new posts
|
 2013-06-17 9:06 AM |
Regular  5477    LHOTP |  Subject: How sequestration is impacting research 2013Don't expect anyone will want to read this whole thing, but if you're curious: Research Administrators: please share with whomever you wish. The story below is within the link shown but you may wish to see additional tabs on the page. Fact sheet: Impact of Sequestration on the National Institutes of Health The National Institutes of Health is the nation’s medical research agency and the leading supporter of biomedical research in the world. NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and apply that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. Due in large measure to NIH research, a person born in the United States today can expect to live nearly 30 years longer than someone born in 1900. More than 80 percent of the NIH's budget goes to over 300,000 research personnel at more than 2,500 universities and research institutions throughout the United States. In addition, about 6,000 scientists work in NIH’s own Intramural Research laboratories, most of which are on the NIH main campus in Bethesda, Md. The main campus is also home to the NIH Clinical Center, the largest hospital in the world totally dedicated to clinical research. Sequestration: On March 1, 2013, as required by statute, President Obama signed an order initiating sequestration. The sequestration requires NIH to cut 5 percent or $1.55 billion of its fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and activities (PPAs), which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means every area of medical research will be affected. NIH FY2013 operating plans: The estimated numbers: (FY 2013 figures compared to FY 2012) While much of these decreases are due to sequester, NIH funding is always a dynamic situation with multiple drivers: The impact: Frequently asked questions: How many fewer grants will be awarded? Approximately 700 fewer research project grants compared to FY 2012. Have the institutes and centers announced their adjusted paylines based on these cuts? The adjusted NIH Institute and Center (IC) paylines and funding strategies can be found here: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/financial/index.htm#strategies What percent cut will be made to existing grants? Reductions to noncompeting research project grants (RPG) vary depending on the circumstances of the particular IC. The NIH-wide average is -4.7 percent. Will the duration of existing grants be shortened to accommodate the cuts? In general, no. Will all grants receive the same percentage cut or will some grants be cut more than others? Institutes and centers have flexibility to accommodate the new budget level in a fashion that allows them to meet their scientific and strategic goals. As noted above, there are different percentages for different ICs, and in some cases for different mechanisms within an IC (RPGs, Centers, etc.). In addition, there may be reductions to grants for reasons other than sequestration, as is the case every year. Will certain areas of science that are at a critical juncture be affected by these cuts? All areas of science are expected to be affected. Will some areas of science be affected more than others? The sequester does not stipulate the precise reduction to each scientific area. However, it is likely that most scientific areas will be reduced by about 5 percent because the sequester is being applied broadly at the NIH institute and center level. What will be the impact of these cuts to NIH’s intramural research at its Bethesda campus and off-campus facilities? The impact on NIH’s intramural research is substantial, especially because it applies retroactively to spending since Oct. 1, 2012. That can double the effect — a full year’s cut has to be absorbed in less than half a year. Will NIH be furloughing or cutting employees at its NIH campus and off-campus facilities? There are no current plans to do so. At present, HHS is pursuing non-furlough administrative cost savings such as delayed/forgone hiring and reducing administrative services contracts so that furloughs and layoffs can be avoided. Additionally, employee salaries at NIH make up a very small percentage (only 7 percent) of the NIH budget. How will current patients at the NIH Clinical Center be affected? Services to patients will not be reduced. Will the NIH Clinical Center see fewer patients because of the cuts? Approximately 750 fewer new patients will be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center hospital in 2013 or a decrease from 10,695 new patients in 2012 to approximately 9,945 new patients in 2013. While much of this decrease is due to funding, clinical activity is always a dynamic situation with multiple drivers. Will the sequester cut need to be applied to the FY 2014 budget? The President’s FY 2014 Budget would replace sequestration and reduce the deficit in a balanced way. The President is ready to work with Congress to further reduce deficits while continuing to make critical investments. About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov. NIH...Turning Discovery Into Health® Note On June 5, 2013 this news release was edited so the hyperlink for the FY2013 Operating Plan Mechanism Table now links to an expanded table comparing NIH FY2013 and FY2012 numbers.
|
| 2013-06-17 8:58 PM in reply to: switch |
| Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 This is probably going to have a negative impact on the medical community to come up with more procedures that are un-affordable. |
| 2013-06-17 9:10 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Straight up, no kidding, I wish it was a 20% cut across the board, and no I do not care what would have to be sacrificed. The government is too bloated to begin with. And all these "sequestration pains" are nothing but propaganda to actually justify putting the money we do not have back. Sorry...too grumpy old manish? |
| 2013-06-17 9:23 PM in reply to: powerman |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 I hate big gov. This was not a whine post. (Vegas, you know me better than that;)) There are lots of things that I think should be cut, and I'll happily work in a more competitive research environment--I'm confident in my work--to gut the bloat. Little devil's advocate--not all research generates expensive procedures; a lot of it works on prevention and detection so that you don't have to have the expensive treatments :) Now, we could talk about all the big $ going to supplement Big Ag, and, in turn, food related diseases like diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Prevention, prevention, prevention. |
| 2013-06-17 9:27 PM in reply to: switch |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 I didn't really take it that you were advocating big gov, just a general rant. AFAIC, the cuts should be across the board, and the Dept. Heads should earn their money and determine what is vital and what is fluff. And if we do not have the money for what is cut, then I am not upset, because we should not have had it in the first place. And yes, I most certainly am talking about the sacred cows too... Defense, SS, MC/MC... everything. |
| 2013-06-18 9:37 AM in reply to: powerman |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by powerman I didn't really take it that you were advocating big gov, just a general rant. AFAIC, the cuts should be across the board, and the Dept. Heads should earn their money and determine what is vital and what is fluff. And if we do not have the money for what is cut, then I am not upset, because we should not have had it in the first place. And yes, I most certainly am talking about the sacred cows too... Defense, SS, MC/MC... everything. Word. |
| 2013-06-18 9:40 AM in reply to: switch |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 I have lost about $100,000 in orders from academics who are not buying because their NIH budget is cut. (Meaning the sequester has taken the comission on these sales from my very pocket). I know of 2 who aren't funding post-doc positions. So yeah: I'm having a real hard time with this... |
| 2013-06-18 3:11 PM in reply to: pitt83 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 I'm a scientist/businessman and have a small company that does contract research, primarily on discovery of anticancer compounds. Basic research on one of our products was funded by NIH, and we are waiting to hear about the next round of funding. It's having a big impact on what we do. There's the direct impact if we don't get a grant, but there's also the impact when our customers don't get their grants. It's a very tough time to be in research. Industry positions are nonexistent, it's almost impossible to get a tenure-track slot in academia, and if you do it's almost invariably tied to your ability to bring in grant money. So the long-term effects on our educational system should also be factored into these cuts. I spent three years at NIH working on the Human Genome Project, so this report that Batelle just released was especially fascinating. The US investment in the Human Genome Project and the ensuing federal funding for genome science has reaped massive economic benefits, according to a new study from Battelle. It found that genomics-related fields from biomedicine to energy and agriculture have had a $965 billion impact on the US economy, stemming from a total of $14.5 billion in federal investments between 1988 and 2012. Genomics-related funding has yielded a $65 return on every $1 invested. |
| 2013-06-18 8:02 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 As a country, we have priorities. I'm OK with research being one of them. But the fact remains we are on a unsustainable economic path. Spending cuts do not get the job done, but spending and entitlement cuts do. I'm even OK with trading some defense for some research. But I am not OK with continuing to hemorage money and the government to continue to prop up a unsustainable economy which leads to financial ruin. I can promise you nobody will be doing any research when the economy collapses. |
| 2013-06-19 11:03 AM in reply to: switch |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Well all I can say is thank God its not impacting a $100MM family trip to Africa. |
| 2013-06-19 1:55 PM in reply to: Sous |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by Sous Well all I can say is thank God its not impacting a $100MM family trip to Africa. No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. |
| 2013-06-19 1:59 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. So then speaking of medical research... it isn't like it was ended. It was cut by 5%. Obviously that is somebodies grant... but we can't cut the budget 5%? I mean seriously... 5% is too drastic? |
| 2013-06-19 2:31 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. So then speaking of medical research... it isn't like it was ended. It was cut by 5%. Obviously that is somebodies grant... but we can't cut the budget 5%? I mean seriously... 5% is too drastic? So now I will rant. Yes, that would be the smart thing to do. Give out the same number of grants and just make everyone's a little smaller. But no, they will cut the number of grants by quite a bit, depending on the individual institute, varying from 1.8% to over 32%. Some of the institutes will receive MORE money than they did prior to the 2013 budget. My grant applications usually go to NIGMS, whose competing budget (grants) is cut 21.6%. Now, I'm lucky, being a small business I can apply for SBIR funding, and they only cut 5.8%. My issue with the way NIH apportions grants is that they have a few established researchers who receive a majority of the funding. Some of those grants are huge. One of my collaborators has over $12mm of NIH funding. I'd rather see a higher number of smaller grants, especially to young researchers doing really innovative work. You probably also don't realize that there is overhead attached to these grants. Universities negotiate their rate with the government. Harvard's overhead rate is 70-99%. So if the researcher gets a grant for $100k, the actual cost of the grant to NIH is $170k-$190k. The university pockets the overhead. That's just absurd. |
| 2013-06-19 2:40 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by Sous Well all I can say is thank God its not impacting a $100MM family trip to Africa. No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. FWIW I did try to use the Sarc font, but for some reason it's not showing up. Just trying to illustrate how effed up the whole budget thing is... research is just another "innocent bystander" that leaves us all scratching our heads. IRS staff is getting $70MM in bonuses, Obamas are going on a $100MM trip, yet medical/scientific research is getting cut... what have we come to????!!!!! |
| 2013-06-19 2:52 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by powerman So now I will rant. Yes, that would be the smart thing to do. Give out the same number of grants and just make everyone's a little smaller. But no, they will cut the number of grants by quite a bit, depending on the individual institute, varying from 1.8% to over 32%. Some of the institutes will receive MORE money than they did prior to the 2013 budget. My grant applications usually go to NIGMS, whose competing budget (grants) is cut 21.6%. Now, I'm lucky, being a small business I can apply for SBIR funding, and they only cut 5.8%. My issue with the way NIH apportions grants is that they have a few established researchers who receive a majority of the funding. Some of those grants are huge. One of my collaborators has over $12mm of NIH funding. I'd rather see a higher number of smaller grants, especially to young researchers doing really innovative work. You probably also don't realize that there is overhead attached to these grants. Universities negotiate their rate with the government. Harvard's overhead rate is 70-99%. So if the researcher gets a grant for $100k, the actual cost of the grant to NIH is $170k-$190k. The university pockets the overhead. That's just absurd. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. So then speaking of medical research... it isn't like it was ended. It was cut by 5%. Obviously that is somebodies grant... but we can't cut the budget 5%? I mean seriously... 5% is too drastic? So then isn't that more a criticism of apportionment and Dept. Head decision making rather than a budgetary cut of 5%? I get what you are saying about how it is done and the impact it has on one compared to others... but is that a reason to not cut a budget by 5%? |
| 2013-06-19 3:29 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by powerman So now I will rant. Yes, that would be the smart thing to do. Give out the same number of grants and just make everyone's a little smaller. But no, they will cut the number of grants by quite a bit, depending on the individual institute, varying from 1.8% to over 32%. Some of the institutes will receive MORE money than they did prior to the 2013 budget. My grant applications usually go to NIGMS, whose competing budget (grants) is cut 21.6%. Now, I'm lucky, being a small business I can apply for SBIR funding, and they only cut 5.8%. My issue with the way NIH apportions grants is that they have a few established researchers who receive a majority of the funding. Some of those grants are huge. One of my collaborators has over $12mm of NIH funding. I'd rather see a higher number of smaller grants, especially to young researchers doing really innovative work. You probably also don't realize that there is overhead attached to these grants. Universities negotiate their rate with the government. Harvard's overhead rate is 70-99%. So if the researcher gets a grant for $100k, the actual cost of the grant to NIH is $170k-$190k. The university pockets the overhead. That's just absurd. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. So then speaking of medical research... it isn't like it was ended. It was cut by 5%. Obviously that is somebodies grant... but we can't cut the budget 5%? I mean seriously... 5% is too drastic? +1 to everything Brian just said. Brian, I had no idea Harvard's overhead is 70-99%. What the hell? And why such a big range? It's not a standard flat rate? 49% at my institution, and that's still absurd. Most of the graduate students in our department (biochem) are leaving academia, not necessarily because they want to, but they feel like they have to. Funding rates are way low, and our department has four current faculty members who have been funded with big labs for thirty+ years who have now been triaged for the last two grant cycles and they're on bridging funds. Many of the smart kids are not getting PhDs right now, and the ones who are are running away from academia. This will have a long standing impact on higher education, especially at the state schools. |
| 2013-06-19 4:04 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by powerman So now I will rant. Yes, that would be the smart thing to do. Give out the same number of grants and just make everyone's a little smaller. But no, they will cut the number of grants by quite a bit, depending on the individual institute, varying from 1.8% to over 32%. Some of the institutes will receive MORE money than they did prior to the 2013 budget. My grant applications usually go to NIGMS, whose competing budget (grants) is cut 21.6%. Now, I'm lucky, being a small business I can apply for SBIR funding, and they only cut 5.8%. My issue with the way NIH apportions grants is that they have a few established researchers who receive a majority of the funding. Some of those grants are huge. One of my collaborators has over $12mm of NIH funding. I'd rather see a higher number of smaller grants, especially to young researchers doing really innovative work. You probably also don't realize that there is overhead attached to these grants. Universities negotiate their rate with the government. Harvard's overhead rate is 70-99%. So if the researcher gets a grant for $100k, the actual cost of the grant to NIH is $170k-$190k. The university pockets the overhead. That's just absurd. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. So then speaking of medical research... it isn't like it was ended. It was cut by 5%. Obviously that is somebodies grant... but we can't cut the budget 5%? I mean seriously... 5% is too drastic? So then isn't that more a criticism of apportionment and Dept. Head decision making rather than a budgetary cut of 5%? I get what you are saying about how it is done and the impact it has on one compared to others... but is that a reason to not cut a budget by 5%? I've had this discussion a LOT lately, as have every scientist involved in medical research. It's the boneheaded decision to significantly cut the number of grants being awarded rather than lower the limits on dollar amounts that is infuriating. We would ALL survive a 5% cut off the research budget. IF we could get funded. I would take a smaller grant but a higher probability of actually being funded any day. You have any idea how much time is spent writing and submitting multiple grants just to have a shot that one will eventually be funded? I was at a meeting this morning with an academic colleague (clinical Oncologist, MD, PhD) . I've identified some compounds that he tested and are active against breast cancer turmor cells he has extracted from patients resistant to tamoxifen. This is the most interesting compound he's tested to date, but we can't see if it's safe and works in a mouse model because he can't afford the mice. And yet, as Sous pointed out, other branches of the government seem to have money coming out of their a**. |
| 2013-06-19 4:06 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by powerman So now I will rant. Yes, that would be the smart thing to do. Give out the same number of grants and just make everyone's a little smaller. But no, they will cut the number of grants by quite a bit, depending on the individual institute, varying from 1.8% to over 32%. Some of the institutes will receive MORE money than they did prior to the 2013 budget. My grant applications usually go to NIGMS, whose competing budget (grants) is cut 21.6%. Now, I'm lucky, being a small business I can apply for SBIR funding, and they only cut 5.8%. My issue with the way NIH apportions grants is that they have a few established researchers who receive a majority of the funding. Some of those grants are huge. One of my collaborators has over $12mm of NIH funding. I'd rather see a higher number of smaller grants, especially to young researchers doing really innovative work. You probably also don't realize that there is overhead attached to these grants. Universities negotiate their rate with the government. Harvard's overhead rate is 70-99%. So if the researcher gets a grant for $100k, the actual cost of the grant to NIH is $170k-$190k. The university pockets the overhead. That's just absurd. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly No offense, but this is why I had not posted in this forum up until now. The topic is medical research. So then speaking of medical research... it isn't like it was ended. It was cut by 5%. Obviously that is somebodies grant... but we can't cut the budget 5%? I mean seriously... 5% is too drastic? +1 to everything Brian just said. Brian, I had no idea Harvard's overhead is 70-99%. What the hell? And why such a big range? It's not a standard flat rate? 49% at my institution, and that's still absurd. Most of the graduate students in our department (biochem) are leaving academia, not necessarily because they want to, but they feel like they have to. Funding rates are way low, and our department has four current faculty members who have been funded with big labs for thirty+ years who have now been triaged for the last two grant cycles and they're on bridging funds. Many of the smart kids are not getting PhDs right now, and the ones who are are running away from academia. This will have a long standing impact on higher education, especially at the state schools. Harvard campus is 70%, their primate facility is 99%. I can understand it being very expensive to do primate research, but there's some monkey business going on there  Edited by BrianRunsPhilly 2013-06-19 4:06 PM |
| 2013-06-19 9:34 PM in reply to: switch |
| Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by switch I hate big gov. This was not a whine post. (Vegas, you know me better than that Little devil's advocate--not all research generates expensive procedures; a lot of it works on prevention and detection so that you don't have to have the expensive treatments Now, we could talk about all the big $ going to supplement Big Ag, and, in turn, food related diseases like diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Prevention, prevention, prevention. I was just feeling bad that nobody had responded and wanted to move it up the page a bit. But seriously, how can we fund things like medical research when people need free phones so desperately. |
) There are lots of things that I think should be cut, and I'll happily work in a more competitive research environment--I'm confident in my work--to gut the bloat. | 2013-06-19 9:37 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by crusevegas Lol. You're a good man Vegas. You should come play more often.Originally posted by switch I hate big gov. This was not a whine post. (Vegas, you know me better than that;)) There are lots of things that I think should be cut, and I'll happily work in a more competitive research environment--I'm confident in my work--to gut the bloat. Little devil's advocate--not all research generates expensive procedures; a lot of it works on prevention and detection so that you don't have to have the expensive treatments :) Now, we could talk about all the big $ going to supplement Big Ag, and, in turn, food related diseases like diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Prevention, prevention, prevention. I was just feeling bad that nobody had responded and wanted to move it up the page a bit. But seriously, how can we fund things like medical research when people need free phones so desperately. |
| 2013-06-20 7:25 AM in reply to: crusevegas |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by switch I hate big gov. This was not a whine post. (Vegas, you know me better than that Little devil's advocate--not all research generates expensive procedures; a lot of it works on prevention and detection so that you don't have to have the expensive treatments Now, we could talk about all the big $ going to supplement Big Ag, and, in turn, food related diseases like diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Prevention, prevention, prevention. I was just feeling bad that nobody had responded and wanted to move it up the page a bit. But seriously, how can we fund things like medical research when people need free phones so desperately. Free phones are something which YOU pay for via your phone bill. It's one of those taxes in the sub-total column and funds phones for those who can't afford one. Ronald Regan instituted the program. It has nothing to do with the federal budget or general fund. Are you willing to add a line item to your doctor's visits to fund the NIH? If it were protected and not put in the general fund, I might.... |
| 2013-06-20 8:32 AM in reply to: pitt83 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 This thread only serves to remind me why gov. shouldn't be involved in a lot of things. They pick winners and losers and when anyone gets their little piece of the pie cut or reduced, well.....its just not fair. That is why we have out of control spending and a growing 16.5 trillion dollar debt. As far as Harvard goes, let them fund their own research with part of their 32 BILLION DOLLAR endowment. |
| 2013-06-20 8:36 AM in reply to: pitt83 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by switch I hate big gov. This was not a whine post. (Vegas, you know me better than that Little devil's advocate--not all research generates expensive procedures; a lot of it works on prevention and detection so that you don't have to have the expensive treatments Now, we could talk about all the big $ going to supplement Big Ag, and, in turn, food related diseases like diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Prevention, prevention, prevention. I was just feeling bad that nobody had responded and wanted to move it up the page a bit. But seriously, how can we fund things like medical research when people need free phones so desperately. Free phones are something which YOU pay for via your phone bill. It's one of those taxes in the sub-total column and funds phones for those who can't afford one. Ronald Regan instituted the program. It has nothing to do with the federal budget or general fund. Are you willing to add a line item to your doctor's visits to fund the NIH? If it were protected and not put in the general fund, I might.... Nope. Let them eliminate some useless program(s). |
| 2013-06-20 12:03 PM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by NXS This thread only serves to remind me why gov. shouldn't be involved in a lot of things. They pick winners and losers and when anyone gets their little piece of the pie cut or reduced, well.....its just not fair. That is why we have out of control spending and a growing 16.5 trillion dollar debt. As far as Harvard goes, let them fund their own research with part of their 32 BILLION DOLLAR endowment. I don't think I said it wasn't fair. Peer review for grants works very well. I would like to see changes to the budget allocation and apportioning process at NIH, but the process for review ranking and of conpetitive grants is a good one. Also, as I said, investment in medical research has a direct social and economic benefit. A 65 to 1 ROI is pretty good. |
| 2013-06-20 12:35 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS This thread only serves to remind me why gov. shouldn't be involved in a lot of things. They pick winners and losers and when anyone gets their little piece of the pie cut or reduced, well.....its just not fair. That is why we have out of control spending and a growing 16.5 trillion dollar debt. As far as Harvard goes, let them fund their own research with part of their 32 BILLION DOLLAR endowment. I don't think I said it wasn't fair. Peer review for grants works very well. I would like to see changes to the budget allocation and apportioning process at NIH, but the process for review ranking and of conpetitive grants is a good one. Also, as I said, investment in medical research has a direct social and economic benefit. A 65 to 1 ROI is pretty good. I disagree that peer review of grants works well. It doesn't! It's almost entirely based on who you are and who you are working in. It's very very difficult to break into that as a new investigator. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK