RT @StevenSalzberg1: 98% of NIH grants that should have gone out this month, didn't. Despite court orders 'unfreezing' the funds, they are…

It’s also a problem that the unelected person unilaterally making funding decisions has pretty obvious conflicts of interest, like >20B in federal subsidies to his companies, and is trying to shut down agencies like USAID that have investigated him

@DaleStarkA10 "Identifying" fraud is no problem. Getting control of payment systems to arbitrarily shut down funds that have already been appropriated by Congress, while tweeting out blatantly false misinfo about the spending you are "uncovering," is in fact a subversion of the Constitution

@sciencey274807 The "tenured deadwood professors" will be fine; they're already done with active research. This hurts junior faculty and trainees by far the most. And it doesn't help with fraud; it likely worsens the risk of it by creating more scarcity and panic.

@susanna_carmona @mitpress I'm so excited to read the translation!

@ImmunoFever There are so many trolls, bots, and haters on this site. I've had people try to dig up details of my grants and studies and personal life to intimidate me away from talking about science. Please keep speaking out and don't let it get you down!

@thealfordplea That's interesting. I wasn't aware of those numbers. In any case, 2019 seems like a somewhat flukey year, and the actual budgets (albeit not spending) were pretty similar in 2019 and 2024

@elwood I certainly don't disagree with that

@thealfordplea Why was NIH’s 2019 spending $13B below the 2019 budget? Government shutdown?

@thealfordplea 15% is way too low. It's less than a quarter of the current rate at many places, and it doesn't account for different sunk costs in diff parts of the country- like NYC vs Ohio. NIH could make the cuts gradual + incremental, and work with investigators to find efficiencies.

@thealfordplea Not sure where you are getting that $10B number. If you compare the 2019 vs the 2024 NIH budgets, they are not $10B apart. Also, indirect rates have not changed dramatically since 2019, so it's not clear that is driving an increase

@thealfordplea I think it's doable. Work with scientists and university leaders to come up with reasonable rates & implement them incrementally so that research universities can budget and plan ahead. Decrease the regulatory burden so institutions don't need so much admin staff.

@thealfordplea Great question. There's a need for more nimble research for sure. However, the way this is being done- a slash-and-burn drastic cut that applies retroactively to already-funded grants - will destroy more than improve. People will get laid off and institutions will close

@PhotobombingC This conversation is getting circular, but I agree on not bankrupting the nation, which is why I think that highly profitable companies that are built on publicly funded science discoveries & that employ workers trained at research universities should be paying a fair tax rate.

@PhotobombingC Many in Congress are speaking up now. But unfortunately when the levers of government are taken over by a billionaire with the $$ to primary anyone who disagrees with him and a party that rewards loyalty over principle, Congress tends to wilt

@PhotobombingC Similarly, CONGRESS sets appropriations and funding priorities to our science agencies, including NIH and NSF. If Elon and Musk want to restructure these agencies, cancel grants, and change indirect costs, they need to go to Congress. What they are doing now is unconstitutional

@PhotobombingC So you're cool with the fact that Tesla, which is heavily subsidized by the fed gov't, reported $6.7B in profit over the last six years and paid ZERO in taxes over that time? That's an efficiency that pleases you, or an example of the rich raiding the public trust?