While working at Johns Hopkins on a colon cancer treatment model I killed thousands of rats. It tore me up. We had monkeys as well that would pee on me when I checked on them. I had to wear a raincoat and honestly I didn’t blame them. I also oversaw an introduction to surgery course for medical students. They operated on dogs, killing the majority of them. It was an absolute useless course. At the end of one course I snuck out 2 beagles, who were wonderful dogs, just before they were to be euthanized. Despite all the torture they were put thru, including having a lung removed, they would wag their tails. They lived out their days on a farm in eastern Maryland after walking down 14 stories (with rests) to escape from the Blalock building. I would never participate in such lack of respect for life “research” that yielded pretty much nothing ever again.
This is horrifying. You should submit a column to the NYTimes, WaPo, NPR, the Atlantic....that might get people's attention and make them see a whole bunch of stuff in a new light.
Better yet, give this information to Glen Greenwald, an incomparable journalist who happens to be an ethical animal lover, and has an ever rotating stable of rescue dogs which he often features during his show.
9. Commit significant resources to replication studies.
10. Centralize scientific review of phase III clinical trials. (This should reduce the number of trials with inadequate treatment in control arms)
11. Full text publications w peer review of any NIH funded study or work derived from NIH work (citizens should not have to pay to see results of research they funded)
You conclude your piece, “The American people deserve to know that each dollar they spend has been MAXIMIZED and OPTIMIZED.” As a taxpayer, I fully agree. But as a human, I would gladly spend every dollar we have spent and more if it were really fueling life-improving discoveries. It makes me sick to my core that so much money has been so wasted on bad studies or academic bloat while we lose family and friends to cancer and while autism is skyrocketing and while student reading and math scores are plummeting. How much research is NOT being done and how many discoveries are NOT being made and how much of the world is NOT understood because of the broken system we have? I hope the changes you recommend and more are made so that REAL science and REAL research can finally be the norm. I feel like we are at a once-in-a-generation inflection point. I hope we don’t mess it up.
I think the lottery would only work until the researchers learned to game it. Submit 10 worthless proposals! Odds are one of them will get through! So we need to work on this idea. Select randomly combined with 5 year bans on people who submitted foolish proposals?
You do have to allow for the less unanticipated consequences. Vinay's process does include a vetting step for initial review before these get into the lottery pipeline.
While I agree, in spirit, with a lot of your comments, I might be one of the few members of your readership who has actually compiled, executed and submitted multiple indirect cost recovery proposals with the federal government. The words do kind of matter: It’s indirect cost RECOVERY. The institution has already spent the money on the facilities (e.g., depreciation, interest, utilities, maintenance, etc.) and the administrative (mostly salaries and systems) costs. The federal government then provides a systematic, process-driven, auditable method for subsequent recovery of many but not all of those costs — e.g., “Administrative” costs are capped (arbitrarily) at 26%, irrespective of actual costs incurred. The NIH limits salary recovery to those earning $221,900/per year. “We cry every time a neurosurgeon gets an NIH grant” (true, it doesn’t happen that often). Again, most of your criticisms are really on point for Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, etc. But they are a lot less relevant to the University of Houston (where most of the buildings aren’t named, the endowment is mid-sized, and they borrowed money to build their research facilities). Those costs should just be donated … to the federal government? And there are a lot more U of H’s than there are Ivies.
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.
New drugs and treatments are being developed every day. This move means that some drugs and treatments that would’ve been available to you and your friends and your family members someday, will not be. If you believe that 15% is the right number and 27% is the wrong number for indirect cost of research, please help me understand why. And don’t forget to show your work.
NIH plans to slash support for indirect research costs, sending shockwaves through science
I don't think anyone is arguing that waste doesn't exist in government programs and that it shouldn't be minimized. However, there is a grant application process and that is where guidelines should be applied. It's ridiculous to apply a blanket guideline to all EXISTING grants. By stopping research in its tracks, stopping clinical trials, etc. we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The point of my series of posts is to highlight how using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel in cutting spending will impact every day people in ways most of us aren't even thinking of. Clinical trials added years to my uncle's life before lymphoma took him from us. People's lives will be cut short by this action.
4h
Reply
I understand that as of yesterday there is a restraining order on altering NIH funding to research universities. However, I disagree with your "life or death" argument. This is about cutting overhead expenses first of all, secondly, improving accountability for every dollar spent, and forcing the NIH to make changes as to what types of research they are funding going forward.
Reply
Again, I'm supportive of improving accountability. "Cutting overhead" sounds good, but it needs to be quantified. In either case, this should be all be addressed in the review of the grant application, not when the trial is underway. There are currently 7,692 clinical trials underway for cancer alone right now, so you won't convince me lives are not at stake, but I'll set that aside for a moment. How much money will be wasted by trials that need to end because of this new directive? How much money will be saved? Do we come out ahead or behind? I'll bet my next paycheck that no one can answer that question, hence the fallacy that any good is being done here.https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?cond=cancer&page=6
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.
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.
no credibility? From UCSF and Stanford MDs? The same was said about accomplished Oxford and Johns Hopkins professors a few years ago.
While working at Johns Hopkins on a colon cancer treatment model I killed thousands of rats. It tore me up. We had monkeys as well that would pee on me when I checked on them. I had to wear a raincoat and honestly I didn’t blame them. I also oversaw an introduction to surgery course for medical students. They operated on dogs, killing the majority of them. It was an absolute useless course. At the end of one course I snuck out 2 beagles, who were wonderful dogs, just before they were to be euthanized. Despite all the torture they were put thru, including having a lung removed, they would wag their tails. They lived out their days on a farm in eastern Maryland after walking down 14 stories (with rests) to escape from the Blalock building. I would never participate in such lack of respect for life “research” that yielded pretty much nothing ever again.
This is horrifying. You should submit a column to the NYTimes, WaPo, NPR, the Atlantic....that might get people's attention and make them see a whole bunch of stuff in a new light.
He definitely should, the question is would any of these msm "leaders" publish it?
Better yet, give this information to Glen Greenwald, an incomparable journalist who happens to be an ethical animal lover, and has an ever rotating stable of rescue dogs which he often features during his show.
I can’t stand NYT, WaPo etc
I would add
9. Commit significant resources to replication studies.
10. Centralize scientific review of phase III clinical trials. (This should reduce the number of trials with inadequate treatment in control arms)
11. Full text publications w peer review of any NIH funded study or work derived from NIH work (citizens should not have to pay to see results of research they funded)
You conclude your piece, “The American people deserve to know that each dollar they spend has been MAXIMIZED and OPTIMIZED.” As a taxpayer, I fully agree. But as a human, I would gladly spend every dollar we have spent and more if it were really fueling life-improving discoveries. It makes me sick to my core that so much money has been so wasted on bad studies or academic bloat while we lose family and friends to cancer and while autism is skyrocketing and while student reading and math scores are plummeting. How much research is NOT being done and how many discoveries are NOT being made and how much of the world is NOT understood because of the broken system we have? I hope the changes you recommend and more are made so that REAL science and REAL research can finally be the norm. I feel like we are at a once-in-a-generation inflection point. I hope we don’t mess it up.
I think the lottery would only work until the researchers learned to game it. Submit 10 worthless proposals! Odds are one of them will get through! So we need to work on this idea. Select randomly combined with 5 year bans on people who submitted foolish proposals?
You do have to allow for the less unanticipated consequences. Vinay's process does include a vetting step for initial review before these get into the lottery pipeline.
While I agree, in spirit, with a lot of your comments, I might be one of the few members of your readership who has actually compiled, executed and submitted multiple indirect cost recovery proposals with the federal government. The words do kind of matter: It’s indirect cost RECOVERY. The institution has already spent the money on the facilities (e.g., depreciation, interest, utilities, maintenance, etc.) and the administrative (mostly salaries and systems) costs. The federal government then provides a systematic, process-driven, auditable method for subsequent recovery of many but not all of those costs — e.g., “Administrative” costs are capped (arbitrarily) at 26%, irrespective of actual costs incurred. The NIH limits salary recovery to those earning $221,900/per year. “We cry every time a neurosurgeon gets an NIH grant” (true, it doesn’t happen that often). Again, most of your criticisms are really on point for Harvard, Yale, Hopkins, etc. But they are a lot less relevant to the University of Houston (where most of the buildings aren’t named, the endowment is mid-sized, and they borrowed money to build their research facilities). Those costs should just be donated … to the federal government? And there are a lot more U of H’s than there are Ivies.
Our admin needs a VOGE.
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.
February 8 at 12:11 PM ·
New drugs and treatments are being developed every day. This move means that some drugs and treatments that would’ve been available to you and your friends and your family members someday, will not be. If you believe that 15% is the right number and 27% is the wrong number for indirect cost of research, please help me understand why. And don’t forget to show your work.
NIH plans to slash support for indirect research costs, sending shockwaves through science
STATNEWS.COM
NIH plans to slash support for indirect research costs, sending shockwaves through science
The NIH said Friday night that it would slash support for indirect costs on all existing and future grants to 15%
For some perspective, read this Substack from UCSF MD. https://www.drvinayprasad.com/.../the-nih-must-make-these...… See more
The NIH must make these 8 reforms right now
DRVINAYPRASAD.COM
The NIH must make these 8 reforms right now
I don't think anyone is arguing that waste doesn't exist in government programs and that it shouldn't be minimized. However, there is a grant application process and that is where guidelines should be applied. It's ridiculous to apply a blanket guideline to all EXISTING grants. By stopping research in its tracks, stopping clinical trials, etc. we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The point of my series of posts is to highlight how using a chainsaw instead of a scalpel in cutting spending will impact every day people in ways most of us aren't even thinking of. Clinical trials added years to my uncle's life before lymphoma took him from us. People's lives will be cut short by this action.
4h
Reply
I understand that as of yesterday there is a restraining order on altering NIH funding to research universities. However, I disagree with your "life or death" argument. This is about cutting overhead expenses first of all, secondly, improving accountability for every dollar spent, and forcing the NIH to make changes as to what types of research they are funding going forward.
Reply
Again, I'm supportive of improving accountability. "Cutting overhead" sounds good, but it needs to be quantified. In either case, this should be all be addressed in the review of the grant application, not when the trial is underway. There are currently 7,692 clinical trials underway for cancer alone right now, so you won't convince me lives are not at stake, but I'll set that aside for a moment. How much money will be wasted by trials that need to end because of this new directive? How much money will be saved? Do we come out ahead or behind? I'll bet my next paycheck that no one can answer that question, hence the fallacy that any good is being done here.https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?cond=cancer&page=6
CLINICALTRIALS.GOV
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.
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.
no credibility? From UCSF and Stanford MDs? The same was said about accomplished Oxford and Johns Hopkins professors a few years ago.
27m
Reply
I think I explained why.