7 ms·
'Never seen anything like this' – NIH meetings and travel halted abruptly
- Facemelters 2y agofun to just suicide the country for literally no reason or rather, for the reason of speedrunning 1990s Russian oligarchic plundering of the state
- Terr_ 2y agoGotta "privatize" the Social Security surplus before it actually gets used for taxpayers, after all.
- dredmorbius 2y agoFor full-article access: <https://archive.is/H3BE9 https://archive.is/H3BE9>
- MichaelZuo 2y agoDoes the NIH have any obligations or made any guarantees to hold these meetings and travel?
- anigbrowl 2y agoConferences and the like are often scheduled a year out, so while I don't know if the NIH has firm legal obligations to hold such events it would not surprise me if this will create contractual issues.
- arp242 2y agoPerhaps not in the strict legal way[1], but if you say "I'm going to do X" as a government then you kind of have an obligation to actually do X unless there's a really good reason not so, because people's livelihoods depend on it. This includes actions taken by a previous government: generally successive governments fulfil the obligations of the previous ones, even those it disagrees with. That's the only way you can run a reasonable long-term stable and reliable government. Of course a new government can change things, but this is often a long process which also includes meeting previous obligations. [1]: Or maybe it does, I don't know. I wouldn't assume anything from the person trying to abolish citizenship birthright in a way that's clearly and obviously unconstitutional.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mmooss 2y ago[flagged]
- skywhopper 2y agoCertainly mainstream media was actively discounting any argument that this level of disruption was likely. But what exactly would you suggest they do?
- Henchman21 2y agoMainstream media is complicit.
- mmooss 2y agoComplicit in what? Which outlets? What did they do?
- kenjackson 2y agoThey weren't actively discounting. I heard one mainstream media (maybe 538) say how they thought it was like a 10-20% chance that Trump would actually end democracy in the US. So not likely, but still incredibly scary odds for something so catastrophic. I think the US public discounted it. 10%? So you mean, 90% won't happen? And even in the 90% case what else unfolds...
- gg82 2y agoIf you went by many of the media though, you would assume the numbers were the other way around.
- mmooss 2y agoThat may be your impression, but what does it mean beyond that? It's not my impression. In fact, many of the (formerly) serious journalism publications have bowed to Trump and normalize what he does: Washington Post, Politico, many others. One problem is 'media' is an incredibly large landscape. Who are you referring to?
- pfisherman 2y agoGiven trends in media (social and otherwise) will have to take a wait and see approach. But sudden cancellations with limited communication is definitely not a strong indicator of a well thought out or executed plan. Feel sorry for the young PIs and postdocs.
- tombert 2y ago[flagged]
- hinkley 2y agoLearned nothing from Covid.
- trescenzi 2y agoIt’s worse than that. The wrong lessons were learned.
- CoastalCoder 2y ago[deleted]
- mschuster91 2y ago> One part of me is glad that the DNC got punished for its arrogance. They already got their first punishment in 2016 and didn't learn from it. Why do you think they'll learn this time? As long as the old farts are in place nothing will meaningfully change.
- tombert 2y agoThe person deleted their comment before I got a chance to respond, so this is more of a response to them than to you. I really hate this sort of "faux long term" shit that I keep hearing about how "it's really a good thing because maybe the DNC will get better!!!!!!!!", because it sort of makes this assumption that the election of a demagogue isn't going to have any long-term, permanent damage. My wife is a Mexican immigrant. She does have a green card, but as it stands I'm slightly worried that the dipshit in office is going to try revoking those, meaning we might be stuck moving to a different country. I think we will be ok, but frankly I do not care about someone's completely unearned opinion about how we're going to get a leftist utopia "eventually".
- 2y ago
- soared 2y agoMy partner works in a cancer clinic at a major university hospital. The staff is terrified of what is to come and this looks like the first domino. Without research grants a critical stepping stone in medicals careers will go missing, along with research into new medicine and treatments. Relying on pharmaceutical companies to take on this research doesn't make sense - a lot of research isn't even about treatment but managing side affects, improving quality of life, testing existing medicines, etc. Very concerned for what will happen here.
- pfisherman 2y agoAdding to that — the mission of academic research centers is to train the next generation of researchers. PIs use this money to fund grad student and postdoc positions in their labs.
- abraxas 2y ago[flagged]
- dukeofdoom 2y ago[flagged]
- TylerE 2y agoThis is like treating a nosebleed by chopping your leg off.
- fallingknife 2y agoIt likely wasn't but here's a link to people how actually debate why instead of screaming racism https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
- fallingknife 2y ago[flagged]
- generationP 2y ago[flagged]
- cyberax 2y agoDude. No. This is an order from the top to stop work. To literally stop everything.
- generationP 2y agohttps://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.z7pm10i/full/actinghhssecretarymemoaction2212025-1737591296147.pdf https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.z7pm10i/full/acti... This is the order. Good luck finding "literally stop everything" in it.
- NelsonMinar 2y agoThis is a clear moment for a European or Chinese research program to announce a major new initiative to hire researchers into stable jobs.
- lumost 2y agoChina did this two decades ago with physics research. It’s a great long term strategy.
- KerrAvon 2y ago[flagged]
- abraxas 2y agoYou're assuming that if the senior goes you're all in the clear. Most regimes of this sort have succession plans. I was born the year of the Iranian revolution. If I was from there I'd be staring at spending essentially my entire life under the regime of the Ayatollahs.
- KerrAvon 2y agoNah, I'm making no such assumptions. On the contrary, we're all fucked for generations to come, and I assume we'll be essentially parted out to China and India. The conservative whackos who have been trying to destroy the USA since 1963 have finally gotten literally everything they wanted in terms of power -- though probably the originators would be appalled at the form it's taking.
- zigglezaggle 2y agoUnfortunately, this is happening at a lot of agencies. Stop work orders have been issued from the state department for pretty much anything relating to international aid at my partner's large USAID-focused contractor. It's so severe the contractor is sending out emails that, to me, look like they're strongly considering shuttering the company ("prioritizing meeting payroll" was one of the things mentioned, and I can't imagine they're going to find new revenue streams in time). A lot of people are reliant on this aid. A lot of people are going to die within weeks.
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- chasing 2y agoSure, but as long as he's giving the crypto industry exactly what they want, it's all worth it, right? Anyway, he's kicking over sand castles. Not because it's going to improve anything, but because he can. Purest expression of power. The cruelty is the point. Etc. It's wild the number of people who think this behavior a good thing...
- alchemist1e9 2y agoIsn’t as simple as ok NIH spends $47B/year so must be some low hanging fruit for cuts. Let’s freeze it all.
- jonstewart 2y agoInfrastructure week!
- more_corn 2y agoY’ain’t seen nothin yet.
- plaidfuji 2y agoMy partner is trying to start a career in intensive care research and submitted for a major NIH grant a few months ago that was given a high score (= would probably be funded). Because of the “pause” we’re now unsure if it will get funded at all. These things take months of prep (years if you consider all of the prior publication work) and if you miss your window it could just sink your career before it gets started. Anyone doing medical research can easily make more money as a clinician in private practice. If we force these people out, it’s the taxpayers loss. Unless you believe medical research as a whole is a waste of money, which… I would disagree on. If it’s simply a matter of changing research priorities, there are already mechanisms to influence that without shutting down the whole system. This is just ham-handed incompetence as a show of force.
- tehjoker 2y agoThis is how you accelerate the end of the US empire. It's bad for us, but tbh, good for the world. The pulling out of America from international institutions and disrupting the scientific pipeline will erode America's ability to perniciously influence world institutions and reduces our ability to brain drain the rest of the globe for the benefit of 4% of the world population (and really, the major benefits go to the top 20% of that 4% and the bulk of that goes to the 1%... 0.1%....).
- int_19h 2y agoThe world won't really be any better off because there are other empires vying for the top spot, and they will simply replace US if the latter drops the ball.
- tehjoker 2y agoIt's not really clear that the situation that has been in place since WW2 that was mainly due to the destruction of Europe and Europe and America's intentional underdevelopment of the rest of the world is a situation that will persist. Most likely the new world will be multi-polar, which has its own challenges but also opportunities.
- int_19h 2y agoWhat difference does it make, though? In any given place, you're either under the heel of one of the empires, or (worst case) in a place where they contest for control via proxy wars.
- Lich 2y agoDon’t worry guys AI will solve all the healthcare! /s https://youtu.be/fkT4bPEQCjc?t=563&feature=shared https://youtu.be/fkT4bPEQCjc?t=563&feature=shared
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoEarlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42798960 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42798960
- LeroyRaz 2y ago"Adding to the worry: the Trump team appears to have deleted entire webpages about diversity programmes and diversity-related grants from the agency’s site."
- LeroyRaz 2y agoI'm consfused. Is this an indefinite or a very temporary thing? The article says the move is part of a roughly 11 day pause in communication (till the first of Feb) but also describes the reviews as "suspended indefinitely"
- guywithahat 2y agoIt should be resumed on Feb 1st. I understand why they’re concerned (everyone wants more money) but from what I can tell this is just grant approvals, and it will resume on the first.
- fallingknife 2y agoWhich will have basically no impact on anything important but everyone here is screaming like the sky is falling
- lightbendover 2y agoPeople will absolutely lose their labs over this, please stop spreading lies either intentionally or from a place of ignorance.
- fallingknife 2y ago[flagged]
- lightbendover 2y ago[flagged]
- amyames 2y ago[flagged]
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hooverd 2y agoSorry, cancer research is woke now. We can't have that. This is idiocy.
- CMay 2y agoI don't know anything about the specifics, but a thought that came to mind is: If you're trying to thin down agencies to reduce costs so the government can significantly reverse or slow its financial trends to buy more time, shaking things a little and seeing who complains could certainly get quick feedback about what to prioritize or what to cut. If your job is so unimportant that you aren't willing to reach out and make a case to the relevant people for why it is important, maybe the mission won't be deemed strong enough to justify spending tax payer dollars on. For work that does produce actual value, assistance could be provided in converting that mission to a private company if the entities that depended on it existing will realistically pay for its services. If it's important and nobody would pay, maybe keep or test viability for converting to a non-profit organization that relies on donations. If it's both unimportant and nobody would pay, probably cut. Existing employees working on it can then be given time/finances to help deal with any transition deemed necessary. The existing government URLs or resources for it could then redirect to the privatized group, which can carry on its legacy. It wouldn't surprise me if we see some more agencies facing various kinds of disruption just to see who gets noisy to gather data. It's worth keeping in mind that government shutdowns are probably far more disruptive and have lasted from 16-35 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
- netlipapa 2y ago> If your job is so unimportant that you aren't willing to reach out and make a case to the relevant people for why it is important, maybe the mission won't be deemed strong enough to justify spending tax payer dollars on. "If you don't complain, maybe your job is not important". "If you complain, your job is important". Do these takes sound reasonable to you? > For work that does produce actual value, assistance could be provided in converting that mission to a private company if the entities that depended on it existing will realistically pay for its services. If the solution is to privatize anything that produces value (and I think we can agree that cancer research does produce value), why do we need the government again? That scenario doesn't even sound realistic as it assumes the transition would be done seamlessly, but that can't happen when the existing entity is shut down abruptly. I think it's blatantly obvious that removing funding from NIH is a negative thing for regular people (not only for Americans), but naive people still try to spin actions like this as something that is being done in their best interest. Please think instead in terms of "how can benefit the people that made the decision", and you'll soon find the real reason why it's being done.
- SebFender 2y agoUnpopular opinion - grants have gone wild in the past decade and these need to be realigned. Now the way is done is variable and may not be ideal - but the work is necessary.