NIH To Suspend Funds For Research Abroad As It Overhauls Policy, Report Says (nature.com) 47
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:3)
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: (Score:2)
My comment (and the thread) related vaccine research, not medication. You go to a far away country, vaccinate a whole village or a fraction of one, then leave them alone and monitor the fraction of them who get AIDS, as compared to non-vaccinated part of the population. This is how the AIDS vaccine candidates are tested directly on humans in the real disease situation, without animals.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hang on a minute... (Score:1)
"how many people will suffer and/or die because life saving research was stopped by the anti-science crowd." REALLY?
Let's check some assumptions, shall we?
1. "life saving research" - Do you have ANY evidence that ANY life saving research has been cut, or even stopped? How do we know with certainty that ANY of this was "life saving" research and not just various people's pet research projects, PhD work, payoffs to foreign entities disguised as medical research grants, etc. None of us on the outside knows w
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:3)
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:2)
Cool! If he ends up at Waterloo he'll only be an hour from where I live.
The Kitchener-Waterloo-Guelph-Cambridge area is a good place to be, with two universities among them and a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas. And for a big-city fix - at least big by our standards - Toronto is only an hour and a half or so away.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Great strategy! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: Spoken like a true MAGA (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I got news for you: there's a LOT of USians that are very unhappy with what he's doing. As for the minority that is actually happy about it, well, I'm reminded of my Mencken:
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
and
On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
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: Great strategy! (Score:1)
Re:Great strategy! (Score:4, Informative)
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, if they leave the U.S. for Canada, Europe, China, etc, we're providing taxpayer-money-trained scientists to other countries. That's a gift to those other countries.
If those scientists are working on something that doesn't align with the government's policies, then the government could alter the direction of the research internally. Stop providing internal funding for project A, and instead offer funding for project B. If the government feels that there is too much investment in a particular organization (e.g., NOAA), then they can freeze hiring to reduce the workforce as older scientists retire. In both of these cases (redirection and hiring freeze) you're either spending taxpayer money differently or slowly stopping the spending, but you're not abandoning the investment.
I work with many of these government scientists in the environmental sciences. They aren't so narrowly skilled that they can't shift gears. Of course there may be some that prefer to leave rather than shift gears to other projects. But that attrition will be far less than mass firings that get rid of people that could still be doing science that the government wants them to do.
This is, of course, predicated on the assumption that the administration is a) interested in federal research and truth-based policy-making, and b) is trying not to waste taxpayer money. I concede that both of those are questionable assumptions with this administration.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
popularly elected President
So popular that he didn't even win with a majority.
Would you keep employees on the payroll that were trying to tank your company and wasting piles of money even when they're not?
You seem to be under the impression that it's the "unelected eggheads" that are wasting the money and trying to tank the company. The company was doing just fine before the orange jackass showed up.
Re: Great strategy! (Score:2)
I guess making all these illegal aliens die from some plague will be easier and cheaper than deporting them to El Salvador.
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).”
Re: (Score:1)
“A forthcoming policy from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will target .. funding to laboratories and hospitals outside the United States” and therefore preventing the next Wuhan type pandemic.”
“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).”
So you think the lab would have been more careful if the US wasn't looking over their shoulder?
That they would have taken more care if only they had less money?
It's MAGAs top to bottom for this story.
When do the sensible people come online?
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?