Mr. B Delany
@MrBDelany
Followers
127
Following
50K
Statuses
755
Joined October 2022
RT @Borlaug_: Indirect cuts might actually be a net positive for $ILMN $TXG $TECH $RVTY $BRKR $AVTR and $TMO (assuming we're not doing awa…
0
7
0
@florian_krammer Tell me you don’t know how government contracting works without telling me you don’t know how government contracting works.
0
0
1
You’re confused. My attachment is the negotiated indirect rates for when foundations give money to university researchers. It doesn’t say anything about foundation internal research because that’s not really a thing for most foundations. Indirect spend isn’t tracked or audited. It’s a slush fund used at the university’s discretion. You like it because your boss likes it because it’s how they bring in general funds for the university without having to fundraise or raise tuition. This performative outrage from academia isn’t fooling anyone. You all are so fucked because you’ve been so entitled. Assume the position.
2
1
5
@Zihai Yes it will. Unlike the impacts of your research. Get a real job serving real customers. What did you think was going to happen when you had everyone writing those “diversity statements”? You got political. Now take your fucking medicine, Doctor.
1
0
0
@vsalvatordali @ClausWilke No customers = not a real job And yes, I’m generally thrilled by profit margins.
2
0
0
Looks like 15% is the going rate for non-NIH indirect. Is your version of reality one where NIH didn’t fund COVID’s origins then persecute those with reasonable opinions on public policy? Could you see how many Americans might find that kind of system of ideological patronage distasteful? Like what did you think was going to happen when you were writing your commitment to racism via DEI statements?
1
0
2
I don’t actually don’t care about any of those orgs. It’s their money, they can do what they want. Nor do I care about pharma’s R&D pipeline. They’ll get the capital if they make something reasonably effective. I care about funding an apparatus of institutions that hate half this country having recently behaved like a bunch of pretentious despots “saving” us from a virus they literally paid to create. This doesn’t get better for you with more transparency into the use of funds. 15% of something is better than 70% of nothing. Trust me.
1
0
2
@labonnelab It is estimated that if NIH funding actually generated that kind of return then investors would be tripping over each others to fund it. 15% is generous. The grift is over.
5
0
11
What was the indirect rate for the Wuhan Institute for Virology? You think they’ll be able to allocate the indirect costs of the wet market going forward? I don’t want them to have to bear that financial burden while they’re doing such foundational and translational research to create a super virus.
1
0
2
Really? So why aren’t capital allocators funding this? That would be an incredible return on capital. Or is that figure from some bullshit self serving study and not an actual financial analysis. Nobody believes you people because you make shit up, it doesn’t replicate, and then you got super political. Go get a job with real customers.
1
1
4
