3 ms·
Most everyone here is missing the point. The real problem is that NIH funding is limited and competitive, and the NIH needs to prioritize funding labs that don'
by jryb 6y ago
Most everyone here is missing the point. The real problem is that NIH funding is limited and competitive, and the NIH needs to prioritize funding labs that don't already have enough money. I'm not discounting that some people involved in this process may be motivated by completely different reasons, but having a complete picture of existing funding sources when distributing grants makes sense regardless of the geopolitical context.
- xenocyon 6y ago> NIH needs to prioritize funding labs that don't already have enough money So then why the focus on foreign grants? From the article: > [Of the scientists who were fired/resigned] Some 70% (133) of the researchers had failed to disclose to NIH the receipt of a foreign grant, and 54% had failed to disclose participation in a foreign talent program. In contrast, Lauer said, only 9% hid ties to a foreign company, and only 4% had an undisclosed foreign patent. Some 5% of cases involved a violation of NIH’s peer-review system.
- jryb 6y agoWell, there certainly may be other motivations at play, but it's also easier to keep foreign grants secret. The NIH, NSF, and American Cancer Society all make their awards public and searchable (I assume it's true for any organization with serious money or federal funding but those are the only ones I have come across). That said I also don't know if the federal funding agencies actually check outside of their own organization whether someone failed to mention a grant on an application.