Trump budget seeks huge cuts to disease prevention and medical research departments

[FelixDeCat]

Having worked extensively in BioTech and pure Pharma for many years, I can confidently say this:

NIH Grants are about 20% fluff scam nonsense to keep researchers employed and overpaid to publish papers where the outcome is already known, so it is of no value to anyone. The butter of the scientists who complain the loudest at any cuts and work for universities or big pharma tend to live here.

Another 20% is spent in support of the 20% listed above. This tends to be in the form of new purchases and personnel justification.

Associate researchers with pipettes, Flow Cytometry support, secretaries, I.T. support, I.T. equipment, HVAC, executive percentage compensation, financial systems, accounting support. The list goes on and on. Lots of brand new gaming laptops and remote-home workstations with overpowered gaming cards spec'd out by researchers who have new equipment listed on their NIH grants.

That leaves a solid 60% which is spent focusing on the project at hand. What was always interesting to me was that these companies always dumped a fair portion of cash into the pot for these projects and applied for NIH matching funds. Why? It is these "good" projects which support their potential patents for the next blockbuster... of which the government will get back only normal corporate taxes. The best scientists work here.

Do with this information what you will.

That is what we come to expect from bureaucracy and government in general, thus my support of trimming some fat - a reset of some sort. Hopefully they will accurately prioritize cuts to focus mostly on waste and not on what appears to be nearly conclusive research.

But this could easily apply to ALL of government most especially the DOD and its gigantic budget. That budget "feeds" so many pockets and is so deeply political it is unlikely we can ever give it the cuts it really needs. A recent glimmer of hope however was the F22 project. It was seen as being so egregious it was finally scaled back.

 

[fskimospy]

Having worked extensively in BioTech and pure Pharma for many years, I can confidently say this:

NIH Grants are about 20% fluff scam nonsense to keep researchers employed and overpaid to publish papers where the outcome is already known, so it is of no value to anyone. The butter of the scientists who complain the loudest at any cuts and work for universities or big pharma tend to live here.

Another 20% is spent in support of the 20% listed above. This tends to be in the form of new purchases and personnel justification.

Associate researchers with pipettes, Flow Cytometry support, secretaries, I.T. support, I.T. equipment, HVAC, executive percentage compensation, financial systems, accounting support. The list goes on and on. Lots of brand new gaming laptops and remote-home workstations with overpowered gaming cards spec'd out by researchers who have new equipment listed on their NIH grants.

That leaves a solid 60% which is spent focusing on the project at hand. What was always interesting to me was that these companies always dumped a fair portion of cash into the pot for these projects and applied for NIH matching funds. Why? It is these "good" projects which support their potential patents for the next blockbuster... of which the government will get back only normal corporate taxes. The best scientists work here.

Do with this information what you will.

You seem to be referring to replication of results, which is actually super important?

 

[abj13]

Having worked extensively in BioTech and pure Pharma for many years, I can confidently say this:

NIH Grants are about 20% fluff scam nonsense to keep researchers employed and overpaid to publish papers where the outcome is already known, so it is of no value to anyone. The butter of the scientists who complain the loudest at any cuts and work for universities or big pharma tend to live here.

Another 20% is spent in support of the 20% listed above. This tends to be in the form of new purchases and personnel justification.

Associate researchers with pipettes, Flow Cytometry support, secretaries, I.T. support, I.T. equipment, HVAC, executive percentage compensation, financial systems, accounting support. The list goes on and on. Lots of brand new gaming laptops and remote-home workstations with overpowered gaming cards spec'd out by researchers who have new equipment listed on their NIH grants.

That leaves a solid 60% which is spent focusing on the project at hand. What was always interesting to me was that these companies always dumped a fair portion of cash into the pot for these projects and applied for NIH matching funds. Why? It is these "good" projects which support their potential patents for the next blockbuster... of which the government will get back only normal corporate taxes. The best scientists work here.

Do with this information what you will.

It is sad to read posts like this when somebody immediately writes "I work in a related field so therefore I'm an expert so listen to me!!!" and proceeds to make up statistics and build statements not grounded in fact. If anything, your post demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are on the subject at hand and reflects how members of the Trump administration can justify their approach to the NIH budget.

Please give us more details about the 40% of "fluff nonsense" science that is funded. Where did you pull this statistic? Do you study the NIH funding mechanisms and who is receiving grants? It is statements like yours that reflect how very little you understand and is unfortunate to know that there are people like you who are willing to take the time to make up numbers. NIH funding is currently very competitive. For example, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, only the top 15% of new/early stage R01 applicants receive funding: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/niaid-paylines and that number drops to 11% for previously funded applicants. NIH grants are peer-reviewed, meaning that experts in the respective fields are selected to review grants. Science that is "already known" or "of no value" would never survive in said environment, and in reality, nobody is willing to take weeks/months to put together a grant application with zero-value science. Writing for a NIH grant does not just happen overnight.

Furthermore, all funded NIH grant proposals are published online and available to the public https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm. Feel free to show us how 40% of the currently funded grants are "fluff."

Better yet, let's take one example. Jeff Gordon (no, not the NASCAR driver) is one of the top researchers on the human microbiome, one of the hottest topics in science today. Of his NIH funding for 2017, which totals approximately 3 million dollars for this fiscal year alone, please detail which of his grants include information that is "already known" or is "fluff." It is all on NIH Reporter and since you're an expert, please provide the data you claim.

Your commentary about supplies reflects opinions of someone who does not even have a clue regarding how NIH funds are dispensed. As part of grant applications, the applicant has to present their research environment. Applicants who want to buy 20 "gaming laptops" as part of their funding mechanism will immediately get dinged in their application for having a poor research environment, meaning those applications already are at a significant disadvantage in being funded. In addition, computer purchases fall under "Facilities and Administrative" costs https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-t...uide/format-and-write/develop-your-budget.htm . Facilities and Administrative funds are individually negotiated as a rate between the DHSS/NIH and research universities, institutes, and companies. This usually means that each researcher is afforded x% of the funds allocated to each organization, and the onus is on each organization to make sure that researchers aren't spending those funds on 20 "gaming laptops" or 5 secretaries and the money truly goes to overhead (facilities operation, electricity, etc). Each organization is going to want to stretch that money as far as they can and is the reason why just about every university has an internal audit process for purchasing items like computers.

So, no, your made-up stories about where funds go do not reflect reality. Researchers have to submit detailed/modular budgets as part of their grant application and are then audited if the grant funding is approved.

And no, I do not work for the NIH nor am I a NIH funded investigator. I'm just knowledgeable enough to know BS when I see it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I am a person living with stage IV cancer for over two years thanks to the tireless efforts of researchers. I don't just live, I continue to work a job & enjoy my family. NIH does important work, when my current drug regimen stops working NIH clinical trials will be my next stop.

All the research, all the brave men & women willing to participate in clinical trials are the base of many treatments yet to come. Cutting NIH so deeply just as Immunotherapy has started showing real promise in the war against cancer is criminal IMHO. This research might not benefit me much now but it will benefit the legions of cancer patients who come after me.

We have to think of those who come after us & fund medical research.

thank you again for sharing your story here to put a more personal touch into a topic many don't have direct knowledge of. Very sorry you're going through this, but very grateful you're able to live with the help of medical research and discovery.
And really, truly sorry that clown in the whitehouse and his cronies are hellbent on ensuring we struggle to get the medical care we deserve.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I am sorry to hear about this. I too lived with an "incurable" disease for nearly 20 years that took a heavy toll on my life until I finally had surgery to remove that last half of my digestive system from the large intestine to the very end. The "cure" almost killed me I might add, but I made it. Seven years later things are about as normal as they were before this ever happened beginning around 1990 and ending in 2010, but the price was pretty high about $160,000.

I am a big fan of all the Star Trek series and it is nice to think that one day we might be able to cure nearly every imaginable disease like they do in the show. In the meantime I hope they are able to find a treatment for you that finally brings about remission if possible. Our most recent loss an uncle to colon cancer, something that would most certainly have gotten me by now if it were not for the surgery.

God bless.

FUCK YOU POSEUR! You're about as christian as dylan roof.

 

[edcoolio]

It is sad to read posts like this when somebody immediately writes "I work in a related field so therefore I'm an expert so listen to me!!!" and proceeds to make up statistics and build statements not grounded in fact. If anything, your post demonstrates how utterly uninformed you are on the subject at hand and reflects how members of the Trump administration can justify their approach to the NIH budget.

Please give us more details about the 40% of "fluff nonsense" science that is funded. Where did you pull this statistic? Do you study the NIH funding mechanisms and who is receiving grants? It is statements like yours that reflect how very little you understand and is unfortunate to know that there are people like you who are willing to take the time to make up numbers. NIH funding is currently very competitive. For example, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, only the top 15% of new/early stage R01 applicants receive funding: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/grants-contracts/niaid-paylines and that number drops to 11% for previously funded applicants. NIH grants are peer-reviewed, meaning that experts in the respective fields are selected to review grants. Science that is "already known" or "of no value" would never survive in said environment, and in reality, nobody is willing to take weeks/months to put together a grant application with zero-value science. Writing for a NIH grant does not just happen overnight.

Furthermore, all funded NIH grant proposals are published online and available to the public https://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm. Feel free to show us how 40% of the currently funded grants are "fluff."

Better yet, let's take one example. Jeff Gordon (no, not the NASCAR driver) is one of the top researchers on the human microbiome, one of the hottest topics in science today. Of his NIH funding for 2017, which totals approximately 3 million dollars for this fiscal year alone, please detail which of his grants include information that is "already known" or is "fluff." It is all on NIH Reporter and since you're an expert, please provide the data you claim.

Your commentary about supplies reflects opinions of someone who does not even have a clue regarding how NIH funds are dispensed. As part of grant applications, the applicant has to present their research environment. Applicants who want to buy 20 "gaming laptops" as part of their funding mechanism will immediately get dinged in their application for having a poor research environment, meaning those applications already are at a significant disadvantage in being funded. In addition, computer purchases fall under "Facilities and Administrative" costs https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-t...uide/format-and-write/develop-your-budget.htm . Facilities and Administrative funds are individually negotiated as a rate between the DHSS/NIH and research universities, institutes, and companies. This usually means that each researcher is afforded x% of the funds allocated to each organization, and the onus is on each organization to make sure that researchers aren't spending those funds on 20 "gaming laptops" or 5 secretaries and the money truly goes to overhead (facilities operation, electricity, etc). Each organization is going to want to stretch that money as far as they can and is the reason why just about every university has an internal audit process for purchasing items like computers.

So, no, your made-up stories about where funds go do not reflect reality. Researchers have to submit detailed/modular budgets as part of their grant application and are then audited if the grant funding is approved.

And no, I do not work for the NIH nor am I a NIH funded investigator. I'm just knowledgeable enough to know BS when I see it.

I'm just relating my first hand experience from industry, thinking that it may add to the conversation.

I made no argument and took no position. It was just my personal first hand observation over many years, nothing more. The cut and paste is of little value in relation to my personal statement and, unfortunately, shows how little you know about the industry.

I have to admit, I was not expecting a personal attack with cut-and-paste statistics and assertions made by the very same bureaucracies committing the waste. I suppose I could go point by point but it would be, well.... pointless.

The bizarre name calling and aggressive attitude aside, I'll say the same thing I said before:

"Do with this information what you will."

 

[edcoolio]

That is what we come to expect from bureaucracy and government in general, thus my support of trimming some fat - a reset of some sort. Hopefully they will accurately prioritize cuts to focus mostly on waste and not on what appears to be nearly conclusive research. (Of course everyone will argue that they are closest to getting a result that would preclude any cuts, but just the way things are).

But this could easily apply to ALL of government most especially the DOD and its gigantic budget. That budget "feeds" so many pockets and is so deeply political it is unlikely we can ever give it the cuts it really needs. A recent glimmer of hope however was the F22 project. It was seen as being so egregious it was finally scaled back.

100% agreed.

 

[abj13]

I'm just relating my first hand experience from industry, thinking that it may add to the conversation.

I made no argument and took no position. It was just my personal first hand observation over many years, nothing more. The cut and paste is of little value in relation to my personal statement and, unfortunately, shows how little you know about the industry.

I have to admit, I was not expecting a personal attack with cut-and-paste statistics and assertions made by the very same bureaucracies committing the waste. I suppose I could go point by point but it would be, well.... pointless.

The bizarre name calling and aggressive attitude aside, I'll say the same thing I said before:

"Do with this information what you will."

What did you think would happen? You're a person of science. Science isn't built upon people claiming to be an expert and providing claims without evidence or support but that is exactly what you posted. And then when one actually reads the statements you provided, people with any knowledge of the system would rightfully agree that your statements are conjecture and reflect how little of the NIH funding mechanisms you actually understand.

Don't float this idea that you are an innocent bystander, you did take an argument. You proposed that 20% of NIH funding goes towards "fluff scam nonsense" science and another 20% goes in support of that "scam" science. You then go on to argue how money is spent on superfluous items, including "gaming laptops."

Like I posted initially, I don't work for the "bureaucracies committing the waste." I just know enough to recognize BS. I think everyone with an objective mind on the topic will rightfully recognize that your statements are woefully inaccurate and that working in "industry" does not make you an expert on the topic. If anything, your statements reflect how little of the topic you actually understand and know and your posts should be discarded as adding nothing but misinformation to the discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm just relating my first hand experience from industry, thinking that it may add to the conversation.

I made no argument and took no position. It was just my personal first hand observation over many years, nothing more. The cut and paste is of little value in relation to my personal statement and, unfortunately, shows how little you know about the industry.

I have to admit, I was not expecting a personal attack with cut-and-paste statistics and assertions made by the very same bureaucracies committing the waste. I suppose I could go point by point but it would be, well.... pointless.

The bizarre name calling and aggressive attitude aside, I'll say the same thing I said before:

"Do with this information what you will."

Yeah you can't exactly say '40% of NIH grant funding is wasted' and then say you took no position. That's a pretty strong position in and of itself.

That aside, can you describe what sort of work you've done in the industry that would give you this knowledge? Are you in the finance divisions of these organizations or have you overseen the dispensation of grant funding?

If what you're saying is actually true and you have evidence to support it you've uncovered a pretty massive scandal that I'm sure any number of news organizations would be very interested in discussing with you. I mean you're talking about somewhere around $8 billion a year in waste, approximately half of what the US spends on TANF, a source of constant controversy. You're also talking about pretty blatant misappropriation which sounds like it could be possibly criminal activity. This all sounds like a huge deal.

 

[agent00f]

What did you think would happen? You're a person of science. Science isn't built upon people claiming to be an expert and providing claims without evidence or support but that is exactly what you posted. And then when one actually reads the statements you provided, people with any knowledge of the system would rightfully agree that your statements are conjecture and reflect how little of the NIH funding mechanisms you actually understand.

Don't float this idea that you are an innocent bystander, you did take an argument. You proposed that 20% of NIH funding goes towards "fluff scam nonsense" science and another 20% goes in support of that "scam" science. You then go on to argue how money is spent on superfluous items, including "gaming laptops."

Like I posted initially, I don't work for the "bureaucracies committing the waste." I just know enough to recognize BS. I think everyone with an objective mind on the topic will rightfully recognize that your statements are woefully inaccurate and that working in "industry" does not make you an expert on the topic. If anything, your statements reflect how little of the topic you actually understand and know and your posts should be discarded as adding nothing but misinformation to the discussion.

Seems clear that edcoolio isn't much more a person of science than FelixDeCat.

 

[zinfamous]

I should also mention that the sad truth is private pharmaceutical research is mostly geared toward therapies and not cures. There is simply much more money keeping people alive but diseased so they can pay $75,000+ on your medicine. Whereas a one time "cure" might only provide so much revenue, certainly nothing most biotechnology investors are interested in.

You just argued for more government-funded research.

Brilliant.

 

[FelixDeCat]

You just argued for more government-funded research.

Brilliant.

Government-funded research is brilliant but not to extent to which it is currently funded. As someone else noted, there is a lot of waste going on. SLOWLY but surely some progress is being made, but we are simply pissing too much money away over and above what is necessary.

Its about as nutty as our outrageous education spending. We far outspend many countries, yet those some countries get results far superior to ours. Over paying teachers and administrators and constantly overbuilding and overspending is getting us no where when the lots of "students" are dumb as a box of rocks regardless of the massive amounts spent.

And lots of times its not the students fault, its the system. Poorly managed schools run by fat cat teachers who get paid either way simply dont give a damn about all they kids they teach. But that too is understandable, as parents dont discipline their kids and they act like sheer animals in class.

Turning things around will start with giving principals immunity from exercising corporal punishment of unruly and disruptive students.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You have no clue what you're talking about.

And no, principals don't get to dole out corporal punishment. No fucking way is some authoritarian assclown beating my child because he's unruly. There's underlying issues in these cases. There's an entire process in place to identify it as well.

For instance, if we had listened to our district, we would be giving my son Lexipro at 8 years old. The medicine has been on the market as long as he's been alive.

We called bullshit, and paid 4k for independent evaluation at a qualified facility that the district would use as well

Turns out, he's dyslexic, and has adhd, goddamn right he's unruly. But will fix damn near anything he gets his hands on.

But no, just beat them into submission. Fuck you.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Up until the 1980s, a good spanking did the trick. Discipline works, drugs not so much.

We hired two of them recently. Total nightmare. Here is an example:

http://nextshark.com/millennials-ar...-history-of-the-world-according-to-employers/

 

[ch33zw1z]

You seem to think corporal punishment is the only form of discipline. It's not, and in my experience there are more effective ways to encourage obodience with understanding of why. Blind obedience is for the religious.

I don't want my kids to swallow bullshit simply because the authorities tell them something. They will grow up to challenge ideas with critical thinking, as that's how we do it in our house.

It's the very same mindset that made me challenge the school district. For them, medicated children as easier to deal with, and less strain on resources. For me, it's my child's well being at stake.

This is a parents responsibility to choose from, not a school administrator or an employer.

I received spankings from my father. It did little to deter me, but made me sneakier. I had little respect for my father for choosing this method. And as a parent, even less now.

I did not click your link, try to stay on topic.

P.s. My kids lose priveleges. Taking away something they want gets their attention, which is the goal. When you have their attention, then a discussion can occur.