NIH To Suspend Funds For Research Abroad As It Overhauls Policy, Report Says (nature.com) 37
Nature: A forthcoming policy from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will target - and at least temporarily stop -- funding to laboratories and hospitals outside the United States, threatening thousands of global-health projects and international collaborations on topics such as emerging infectious diseases and cancer.
The NIH, the world's largest funder of biomedical research, plans to release the policy in the next week. Some agency staff members have already been instructed to hold funds for foreign institutions that are part of both new research grants and grants coming up for renewal, according to multiple agency employees who spoke to Nature under the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press.
The NIH, the world's largest funder of biomedical research, plans to release the policy in the next week. Some agency staff members have already been instructed to hold funds for foreign institutions that are part of both new research grants and grants coming up for renewal, according to multiple agency employees who spoke to Nature under the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press.
Re: But where will I do my beagle puppy research? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Obvious solution is to have no solution. Just prohibit animal testing -> higher risk for the first human testers -> need to pay them "The Wages of Fear".
In this case, effectiveness can only be tested in the field, meaning in populations exposed to the disease. That's how we do anyway for HIV/AIDS vaccine development (hence the NIH and others having research programmes abroad).
2. Bodyoids (lab-grown, brainless bodies) https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org] Could be animal (puppies unable to suffer) in a
Re: (Score:2)
The first one will generally never fly, except in extreme cases. I admit a degree of ignorance here, but as far as AIDS goes, I'm not even certain what new medications come out these days, short of existing medications that are lumped together in a single pill. My understanding is the the antiviral drugs that have been created at this point relegate the virus to such a small count that it's virtually undetectable. That is, so long as you take the drugs, it won't be an issue anymore. These drugs have all gon
Re: But where will I do my beagle puppy research? (Score:4, Insightful)
I prefer human kids dying from smallpox than see your big sad eyed puppy fantasy animals hurt.
What a coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how those two go hand in hand. Wonder how many people will suffer and/or die because life saving research was stopped by the anti-science crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Just yesterday I provided evidence [slashdot.org] the administraion was trying to cut NIH funding for research and was modded Troll. Today we see the administration is doing the same thing but this time it's for overseas funding. Funny how those two go hand in hand. Wonder how many people will suffer and/or die because life saving research was stopped by the anti-science crowd.
If research needs to be continued, we have to figure out a way for the billionaires to make money off of it. We're cutting funding for important things because we desperately need to have yet another tax cut for the billionaires. No one can explain why the richest people on Earth need a tax cut, but apparently it's the top priority of the current administration.
Re: (Score:2)
If research needs to be continued, we have to figure out a way for the billionaires to make money off of it.
Billionaires already do make money off it. Why do you think pharma is such big business in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
If research needs to be continued, we have to figure out a way for the billionaires to make money off of it.
Billionaires already do make money off it. Why do you think pharma is such big business in the USA.
Apparently they aren't making enough or they would have insisted funding for research not be cut.
They tend to make their money off the back-end of research, when the results start to be sold. They may not be smart enough to realize that there won't be new revenue sources if there's no research up front to create them.
Great strategy! (Score:5, Funny)
1) Suspend your investment and involvement in in-progress medical research
2) Allow other countries to pick up the slack, leverage your past investment, and come up with new medical discoveries, treatments, and innovations.
3) Profit! Respect and admiration! Gratitude! Credibility! (All for the other countries that picked up where you left off).
Is America tired of all this winning yet?
Re:Great strategy! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget all the researchers who will move overseas to take advantage of research opportunities that have dried up here. France, Germany and Belgium have all started programs to attract researchers away from US universities, and the EU is moving to establish programs to attract American researchers.
This of course is a huge boon to China's ongoing effort to attract science and technology expertise from the US.
Re: (Score:2)
France, Germany and Belgium have all started programs to attract researchers away from US universities, and the EU is moving to establish programs to attract American researchers.
Canada too! https://www.cbc.ca/news/health... [www.cbc.ca] So far we're only doing it at the provincial level, probably because our federal government was just elected so there will be a bit of a delay. But I'm fairly sure that Ottawa will be rolling out the welcome mat big-time in the coming weeks. Welcome American scientists, academics, doctors, etc!
Re: (Score:3)
My son is a chemical engineer who has spent his career doing battery and fuel cell research. He's looking at graduate programs in the UK because of the disruption to academic battery research in the US. But if Canada rolls out the welcome mat he'll probably apply to Waterloo or Calgary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't matter. You seem to be under the impression that the US is unhappy with what he's doing. This is not the case. What he's doing is exactly why he got voted in. If you think the small dip in his poll numbers means anything besides people wanting him to move faster and more decisively, you're mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great strategy! (Score:5, Insightful)
The president seems to think Isolationism will "make America great again" - but, if he succeeds, it's more likely the end result will be "make America mostly irrelevant outside of its own borders".
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, that just isn't a realistic worry when you've got 40% of the world market as leverage. You're just going to have to be disappointed.
Re: (Score:3)
The investment loss is, in my opinion something that should really be resonating with people that are worried about reducing the federal budget, yet doesn't. Billions of dollars have been spent investing in government scientists, like those at NOAA, NASA, NIH, EPA, and other agencies. They have become highly skilled workers, trained and paid with taxpayer money starting in grad school. Firing them is a statement to the taxpayers that the administration doesn't care about their investment. On top of that,
Re: (Score:2)
The American public stated pretty clearly that we absolutely do not care about recouping that investment when it's being used against us. If the unelected eggheads are actively working against the popularly elected President and his policies, he unquestionably should get rid of them. Would you keep employees on the payroll that were trying to tank your company and wasting piles of money even when they're not?
Re: (Score:2)
The American public stated pretty clearly that we absolutely do not care about recouping that investment when it's being used against us.
How exactly is cancer research being used against you?
If the unelected eggheads are actively working against the popularly elected President and his policies, he unquestionably should get rid of them.
Again, how is working on scientific research that they have previously been given the OK to do, by the US government no less, "actively working against the President?"
Would you keep employees on the payroll that were trying to tank your company and wasting piles of money even when they're not?
See my above questions, but let me charitably rephrase your question as "would you keep employees on the payroll if they disagreed with the CEO" and the answer is "YES". I absolutely would. The fact that you seem to think that disagreement is equal to active sabotage, and that it is ther
Re: Great strategy! (Score:2)
"unelected eggheads" have brought you cancer treatments, atomic clocks, humans on the moon, nuclear power, genome mapping, rovers on Mars, fewer deaths from heart disease, new chemical elements, the neutrino, and thousands of other discoveries. They did all that for Democrat and Republican presidents.
But I guess those achievements didn't make America great, so it would have been better if we hadn't put taxpayer money toward them. Yeah, definitely would have been better if China or Russia or Europe had figu
Bring ebola here! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, we should send money to hostile nations to create bioweapons instead. I mean, it's not like there's any chance anyone like China would intentionally let one loose. Oh, wait...
The NIH funded Wuhan Institute of Virology (Score:4, Informative)
“WASHINGTON [house.gov] — The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held a hearing titled “A Hearing with the President of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak” to examine EcoHealth Alliance’s (EcoHealth) use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).”
Why go outside the US to begin with? (Score:2)
We know that Obama outlawed GoF research - so NIH help shift it to China, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where half the staff had military titles to begin with.
If that research is valuable - why move it outside the US to begin with if not to hide something?