NIH
milhayser | March 8, 2011
House Republicans are pushing a bill that would cut funding for the National Institutes of Health by $1.6 billion, over five percent. Isis the Scientist issues a call to action, saying "Whether you are a scientist, a student, or a member of the public interested in the future of science, I join with Dr. Talman in asking you to call your Congressional Representatives and ask them to oppose HR1." DrugMonkey offers a cheat sheet full of facts, figures, and talking points so we can know what we're talking about when we contact our representatives. Orac calls the savings "minimal and symbolic…
mikethemadbiologist | February 17, 2011If you care about science, then contact your representatives and ask them to oppose the Republican NIH funding cut proposals. As JuniorProf notes, most of the leads in terms of therapeutics are happening in the public sector, not the private sector.
While you're at it, how about mentioning the CDC too?
Thank you.
mikethemadbiologist | February 9, 2011There's been a lot of craziness regarding NIH funding that I haven't been properly able to slam (had a talk to prepare), but now I can. A recent rant left by D. Noonan about the problems with the NIH grant awarding system has led to a spate of responses in the science bloggysphere. I really don't agree with Noonan at all, although I approve of the ranting style (doesn't curse though). My basic disagreement with Noonan is what DrugMonkey highlighted from Noonan's rant: "their piece of the [NIH] pie." That statement arrogantly implies a claim on NIH resources regardless of outcomes.
Last…
mikethemadbiologist | February 1, 2011DrugMonkey asks "Is the NIH trying to get rid of smaller laboratories?" Before I get to my take on the answer, what I'll be talking about is based on private conversations, so I won't be attributing some things to specific people (sorry Ed!). Take this for what it's worth...
I don't think NIH is specifically trying to tank smaller labs. Instead, NIH seems to be reacting to frustration, both within and outside NIH, about the pace (or lack thereof) of translational research. Without viewing the funding situation for independent PI-driven labs in the context of larger NIH-wide moves towards…
mikethemadbiologist | January 27, 2011It would be for the best.
First, some general thoughts. I had the distinct sense Obama was trying to run the clock out. He knew he had to say something, but has no room to maneuver. Thanks to his mediocre first two years and his enabling of conservative talking points (which one wonders if that's not strategic, but ideological), the Democrats lost control of the House and have been boxed into a corner rhetorically. Related to that, he set the stage over and over again to box Republicans in, but then he mostly chickened out and rarely offered concrete proposals that would put them in a…
mikethemadbiologist | November 30, 2010You might have heard how Obama has called for a three year salary freeze for all non-military federal employees. Let's leave aside the notion that we need every drop of fiscal stimulus we can get our hands on. Instead, I would like to know how this will not make things worse for research in the U.S.
As it is, program officers are overworked and understaffed with support personnel. I can't see morale increasing with this move. This won't make retaining people any easier--and probably will make it harder, since the good people will have other options (despite many academics' dislike of…
mikethemadbiologist | November 5, 2010I realize most people probably don't care very much about science funding, but I'll go out on a limb and assume that many readers here do care about science funding (I think many, in the public as a whole, don't even realize how science is paid for). The Republican platform, Pledge to America, boldly declares that all non-military discretionary spending will be reduced to 2008 levels. Here's what this would mean for science funding:
Under that plan, research and development at nonmilitary agencies -- including those that sponsor science and health research -- would fall 12.3 percent, to $57…
kcollins | October 20, 2010Find the full schedule of NIH events here But can't miss some special stage shows like the director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins performing!
This weekend, October 23 and 24, NIH will bring our science to the people at the inaugural USA Science and Engineering Festival ExpoExternal Web Site Policy in Washington, D.C. From 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 1,500 interactive exhibits and 75 stage shows will be held across four downtown DC locations on and near the National Mall. Details on the festival websiteExternal Web Site Policy, including a mapExternal Web Site Policy.
Here's the lowdown on all of…
mikethemadbiologist | October 14, 2010And by hot, I mean employable. I'll get to that in a bit, but I first want to relate some history. Back when I was a wee lil' Mad Biologist, and molecular population genetics was in its infancy, there was a brief period where people had to be convinced that this stuff was useful (it was). Then it became fashionable, and the 'early adopters'--people who were regularly using PCR and clone-based sequencing (followed by S35 sequencing)--became hot intellectual commodities for about five years. Then the field became crowded, but 'good' molecular population geneticists (whatever 'good' means)…
mikethemadbiologist | September 1, 2010There's something that has puzzled me about the recent stem cell decision that led to an injunction that prevents the NIH from spending any funds on research involving human embryonic stem cells. I've read the decision (pdf), and it appears to be incredibly broad and damaging to NIH funding in general.
I could understand an injunction based on a finding that the policy violated federal law: I think that's stupid, but I get it. What I don't understand is the finding that NIH policy causes harm to the plaintiffs (the researchers who brought the suit):
Plaintiffs are researchers who work…
mikethemadbiologist | August 16, 2010
Well, someone at ScienceBlogs had to draw down on Scientopia, and it might as well be the Mad Biologist. I was going to respond to this post by proflikesubstance about genomics and data release in a calm, serious, and respectful manner, and, then, I thought, "Fuck that. I'm the Mad Biologist. I have a reputation to uphold."
Anyway, onto genomics and data release. Proflikesubstance writes:
I learned something interesting that I didn't know the sharing of genomic data: almost all major genomics centers are going to a zero-embargo data release policy. Essentially, once the sequencing is…
mikethemadbiologist | July 15, 2010Someday, a science reporter is going to hybridize with an economics reporter and then the topic of how science is funded will actually be covered accurately. Until then, you're stuck with the Mad Biologist. By way of The Intersection, we come across this Chronicle of Higher Education commentary by Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus. I think the overall point, which is that colleges and universities have strayed from their core mission, which is education, is a good one. But like much commentary on this subject, it neglects the harsh, cold reality of revenue (Got Pepsi?). Here's their…
mikethemadbiologist | May 25, 2010Genome Biology recently published a review, "The Case for Cloud Computing in Genome Informatics." What is cloud computing? Well:
This is a general term for computation-as-a-service. There are various different types of cloud computing, but the one that is closest to the way that computational biologists currently work depends on the concept of a 'virtual machine'. In the traditional economic model of computation, customers purchase server, storage and networking hardware, configure it the way they need, and run software on it. In computation-as-a-service, customers essentially rent the…
mikethemadbiologist | April 7, 2010Before I got into genomics, I spent some time in science and health policy. On a couple occasions, I was invited to participate in a round table/white paper thingee where we were supposed to offer suggestions to NIH and other funding agencies. We would make recommendations, program officers would agree with those recommendations, and then reviewers would... fund the same old shit.
That's why I've advocated more specific RFAs that allow NIH to set targeted priorities:
My experience has been that with very targeted calls for proposals, there are far fewer proposals submitted, and it's much…
revere | March 7, 2010Most of you don't want to hear about my grant writing any more, but some of you are clearly interested in one of our innovations (at least I think it's an innovation; I've never heard of anyone doing it on this scale before): the Mock Study Section. So I'll take a break from writing (actually, re-writing) to describe it. First I should explain to the uninitiated what a "Study Section" is.
In grantee parlance, the Study Section (also called a Scientific Review Group) is a committee of external scientists who review grant proposals and meet to discuss and grade them. There are many regular…
kcollins | February 22, 2010Francis Collins and Larry Bock
I was attending the AAAS annual meeting last week in San Diego, and Dr. Collins was speaking to several groups at the conference. After living in Washington, DC for almost a decade, and having worked for various federal agencies, I am used to the reverence people have for senior federal officials.
In DC, the head of an organization like NIH is essentially the CEO of a big company who has people who meet with people like me. My professional contact with federal officials at Dr. Collins' level has been limited to a quick introduction and handshake before a…
revere | February 18, 2010When I first started teaching as an academic and told my family I taught 6 hours a week, they probably thought I had it pretty easy. I'm also sure they wondered what I did the rest of the time. Teaching a couple of new courses is a big job and it often absorbs more than the usual 40 hour week, but it's hard to account for your time. The same with writing grants. The idea that writing my grant (I can hear the groans, already; he's not going to talk about that again, is he?) is going to occupy 7 days a week until it's due at the beginning of April probably sounds inexplicable and impossible to…
mikethemadbiologist | February 1, 2010Just looked at the White House's proposed HHS budget for 2011, and it seems like the NIH budget will increase from $30.8 billion to $32.1 billion, with over six billion spent on cancer (are you listening Orac?). Other civilian research agencies will be getting bigger increases (Intelligent Designer knows they need it)
I'm feeling hopey and changey!
mikethemadbiologist | January 21, 2010In response to my post about the scientist glut, ScienceBlogling Razib writes:
But that aside, what's the point of funneling more math and physics graduates into math and physics instead of finance if they can't put bread on the table? Or is the issue narrower, specifically the difficulty of getting an academic job? Or perhaps the major dynamic is that science & engineering professions are just really bad at capturing the value they generate for the society as a whole?
One of Razib's commenters hits the nail on the head:
We do not need more scientists, but academic science as practiced…
mikethemadbiologist | January 20, 2010A minor kerfuffle has erupted around healthcare expert and MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, with some fireworks between Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman. Gruber has received $392,600 in funding from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to model healthcare outcomes. The argument has arisen because Gruber has been promoted by the Obama administration as "objective" and "independent." At first, I was very sympathetic to Krugman's view:
The truth is that this is no big deal. Gruber's grant is from HHS, not the West Wing; it's basically the same kind of thing as, say, an…