I think you’re missing the point of the Substack article I sent. Top research universities are extorting the NIH and charging ridiculous premiums just so money can flow to their researchers. That needs to stop.
2h
Reply
I'm not missing the point at all. I am missing the credibility:
I think you’re missing the point of the Substack article I sent. Top research universities are extorting the NIH and charging ridiculous premiums just so money can flow to their researchers. That needs to stop.
2h
Reply
I'm not missing the point at all. I am missing the credibility:
1. Out of a sample size that large, it's always possible to cherry pick a few examples of whatever one is looking for.
2. Out of the eight points made, the writer was only able to provide a citation on three. Those are in the form of screenshots, not links (I can't even see the discussion on the X screenshot because that platform is so broken I can't access my account). I took the time to read the article on the cancer trials, though. His arguments here are lazy and target the base. In order to insure diversity in clinical trials, clinical researchers need to first understand, among other things, the barriers to achieving that diversity, which is what the research aims to explain. And, there are reasons beyond "DEI" to have diversity in trials. Despite knowing this "for decades", achieving diversity in trials remains issue in the industry; I'm talking with a customer about how we can help them with this now.
If we find frivolous spending after a grant has been made, action ought to be taken, but I come back to my same point - I'm not seeing a good argument for retroactively cutting funding for all.
1h
Reply
no credibility? From UCSF and Stanford MDs? The same was said about accomplished Oxford and Johns Hopkins professors a few years ago.
I think you’re missing the point of the Substack article I sent. Top research universities are extorting the NIH and charging ridiculous premiums just so money can flow to their researchers. That needs to stop.
2h
Reply
I'm not missing the point at all. I am missing the credibility:
1. Out of a sample size that large, it's always possible to cherry pick a few examples of whatever one is looking for.
2. Out of the eight points made, the writer was only able to provide a citation on three. Those are in the form of screenshots, not links (I can't even see the discussion on the X screenshot because that platform is so broken I can't access my account). I took the time to read the article on the cancer trials, though. His arguments here are lazy and target the base. In order to insure diversity in clinical trials, clinical researchers need to first understand, among other things, the barriers to achieving that diversity, which is what the research aims to explain. And, there are reasons beyond "DEI" to have diversity in trials. Despite knowing this "for decades", achieving diversity in trials remains issue in the industry; I'm talking with a customer about how we can help them with this now.
If we find frivolous spending after a grant has been made, action ought to be taken, but I come back to my same point - I'm not seeing a good argument for retroactively cutting funding for all.
1h
Reply
no credibility? From UCSF and Stanford MDs? The same was said about accomplished Oxford and Johns Hopkins professors a few years ago.
51m
Reply
I think I explained why.