7 ms·
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/39937880 https://europepmc.org/article/MED/39937880 Sadly, the group lists funding sources as: National Cancer Institute: P30
by caycep 2y ago
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/39937880 https://europepmc.org/article/MED/39937880
Sadly, the group lists funding sources as:
National Cancer Institute: P30CA069533
National Cancer Institute: P30CA069533
So the group's activities likely on pause, and with a good likelihood of closure due to the lack of NIH indirects from the current administration.
- daedrdev 2y ago[flagged]
- phony-account 2y agoAw come on - the money is obviously much better spent on some armored Cybertrucks.
- pstuart 2y agoIt's a pity that even discussing policy/objectives/outcomes is fraught with danger here. Partisan sniping obviously doesn't belong, but we now live in a world where vaccines, energy production and efficiency of use, climate science et al, are all "politicized". For those wielding power, that's a feature, not a bug.
- sho_hn 2y ago> we now live in a world where vaccines, energy production and efficiency of use, climate science et al, are all "politicized". Oh, you speak from my heart. I wish these were not partisan and weren't coded for allegiances. Some things we should just be able to agree on, much like water being wet. Every time the Culture War escalates to cover another important topic I groan.
- boplicity 2y agoPlease remember this next time there's an election.
- pstuart 2y agoThis and so much more.
- breadwinner 2y agoHN crowd remembering it is not enough. The problem in the U.S. is that the electorate is divided into two camps: the educated and the uneducated. The uneducated camp votes without a deep understanding of important issues, and they can easily be influenced using "culture wars" topics such as DEI and trans kids. Consider that 53% of Americans approve of the administration’s performance so far—why is that? How can we effectively explain things to that 53%? That’s the challenge.
- alvah 2y ago[flagged]
- breadwinner 2y agoCan you help us understand why you support cuts to NIH and cancer research?
- alvah 2y agoI can't help you with your reading comprehension. Where did I make any such statement? I am merely pointing out that hysterically calling ~50% of the population stupid, uneducated etc, while feeling smugly superior to them, was not a winning strategy in 2016 or 2024, and proponents of said strategy seem unable to learn from repeated failures.
- bashthefash 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- baxtr 2y agoCan someone build an agent that identifies groups that will have to stop activities and then match them with groups outside the US? This could potentially help to sustain their work if the other groups/labs agree to take over.
- nradov 2y agoWhat is the correct amount of indirect for NIH grants? I'm not informed enough to have an opinion on this, but based on seeing the luxurious facilities and high administrative staffing levels at many research universities it seems like there might be some fat we could cut? I've read claims by other prominent researchers that this change is a net positive since it will free up funding for more actual research. So, I don't know who to believe?
- Jedd 2y agoGut response to this is twofold. First 'luxurious' sounds wasteful, but I guess that's the intent of the word. I suspect it's a trivial component of total funding, but is the most visible to non-science types. Second, 'read claims' but not citing them sounds a lot like the hand-wavey 'People are saying ...'
- nradov 2y agoNoted medical researcher and oncologist Dr. Vinay Prasad appears to be one of those people. I don't know whether his statements are accurate but he seems pretty knowledgeable about the system. https://www.sensible-med.com/p/cutting-nih-indirects-is-sensible https://www.sensible-med.com/p/cutting-nih-indirects-is-sens...
- nahnahno 2y ago79% accuracy. Useless