For organizations "subject to taxation" which excludes most universities.
Med School Professor. Brain Physiology researcher. Biomedical Engineer. Biomedical device work. I stimulate mammalian brains to improve cognition. OMHIWDMB.
658 followers 126 following 669 posts
view profile on Bluesky
For organizations "subject to taxation" which excludes most universities.
Re: the House’s markup: p118 Sec 235 looks like a 30% cap on indirect costs. appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-su...
🧪 And House appropriators say: no cuts to NIH budget! House subcommittee version just came out (link below). Holds NIH flat at $48 billion. To be clear: this is far from over. But a good sign that science still matters across both sides of aisle. YOUR VOICE MATTERS!!
I do not think you know what someone who has had a "significant ischemic stroke" looks like in the week after the stroke. Please stop the med sleuthing. Anyone can see Trump is hiding a medical issue. But amateur sleuthing can cause real harm to others.
Appeals court rules against Trump on his tariff powers:
Quiet... So far.
I was offering as an example the one place where feedback on degree program duration makes a tangible difference. These set the standard, even if permanent work status is a technical T32 requirement.
The rise of China as an international research powerhouse over the last 30 years has been remarkable and should be lauded and chronicled. In the US our funding agencies are using accounting tricks to reduce the total research footprint instead. That's where we are for competitiveness.
Thinking about where biomedical research will be in another decade is an interesting exercise. Even excepting the occurrences in the past six months, the ongoing trends suggest things will be very different. 2/2
The basic science faculty at a medical school are 35% female. Columbia is below this national average by quite a bit. Maybe 10% under. They also quoted several Nobel Laureates. Only 6% of those are female. Yes, almost all the folks they quoted will all be inactive in a decade's time. 1/
The T32 programs that used to exist at NIH want average finishing rates of 4.5 years, but the average is closer to 5.5. But yes, this seems designed to allow undergraduates (who pay tuition) and exclude graduates (who are paid).
Working together to build strong scientific communities — a Comment article by Megan R. Carey @megancarey.bsky.social #neuroscience #neuroskyence www.nature.com/articles/s41...
After all the hub-bub about forward funding and paylines, the NINDS payline for FY25 is posted as 8% and being paid. There is no Oct 1 US budget yet. The payline is the same as last year under the same circumstances. How the NIH's ADRD mandate from Congress will be performed is still unclear.
Heinen, Stephen J., and Scott NJ Watamaniuk. "Spatial integration in human smooth pursuit." Vision research 38.23 (1998): 3785-3794.
In the Harvard vs Trump case, which was heard by the Honorable Allison Burroughs, Harvard requested a decision by Sept 3, which is a week from Wednesday.
I've seen data and talks on a few issues that really look curious to me. One of them is lithium and all-cause mortality. Just a head scratcher. The other is PDE5 inhibitors - particularly with stroke. The potential mechanisms are head scratchers, but the results seem hard to ignore.
Congress is on August recess. I expect some actions will be attempted in the legislative arena starting next Tuesday. But time is short and Epstein is the top priority...
The House and Senate remain on August recess for 8 more days, through Labor Day. For federal funding/budget and NIH paylines and forward funding, the 4 weeks after Labor Day will be eventful. But the coming week may be quiet.
I highly applaud Cory's efforts, and agree with them, but this article reminds me too much of this prior foreboding article. www.nature.com/articles/437...
I've done motor mapping with Randy...he is on the cusp of retirement now...here is one prior study, but I think there are a handful that look at imagined motor movement in amputees. academic.oup.com/brain/articl...
I'm fairly certain this sort of work, tracking motor maps before/after amputation, has some precedent in the last five years. Actually, more than the last five years.
I've heard comparison is the thief of joy quite often.
I've alerted our MRI physicist who is an astrophysicist and he may send me photos skies permitting. He bought a house near Sharon GA because it is dark skies.
Do you need tracking to use it? I have a little 6 inch Dobsonian I used to show scouts the moon and sometimes Venus. Saturn is hard for my scope, and the Titan transit would not work.
What is your telescope rig?
For folks having trouble putting 1 and 1 together with respect to Trump and Putin's summit. 1) Trump is awfully concerned about the Epstein issues 2) Reports say that Putin bought videos and other evidence about Prince Andrew from his time with Epstein 3) Epstein video'd everything
I think you can equilibration takes much longer than 4 years, and that years 2, 3, and 4 we have 31-37.5% reduced research capacity because we wanted to forward fund grants. Either the admin is colossally stupid, or they are not acting in good faith. 9/9
Year seven $8B awards first year, $24B into escrow, $24B out of escrow, 10666 new awards We now have the same number of grants as when we started. 8/
Year six $8B awards first year, $24B into escrow, $22B out of escrow, $48B in escrow 10666 new grants awards Total awards is now 40000 7/
Year five, $8B new awards first year, $24B into escrow, $18B out of escrow (now $46B in escrow) 10666 new awards, and only 2666 came up for renewal net of +8000. Total awards is now 34665 Capacity loss is now 18.7% 6/
Year four $8B new awards first year, $24B into escrow, $12B out of escrow (now $40B in escrow), 10666 new awards from the 10666 renewing and the 16000 grants that failed to renew years 1-3 Total awards now is 26666 Still down in capacity 37.5%. 5/
Year three $6B new awards first year, $18B into escrow, $6B out of escrow (now $28B in escrow), 8000 new awards. Now 26666 active grants. 37.5% of all lab groups defunded since year one. 4/
Year two. 34666 labs funded, but 10666 are renewing $4B new awards first year, $12B into escrow, $2B out of escrow, so $16B in escrow, 5333 new awards Now we have 29332 funded grants 31% of all grants are defunded (across both years), or 50% of all those renewing this year 3/
Year one 42666 funded lab groups, and 10666 up for renewal, $24B used for noncom renewals $2B goes into use, $6B into escrow (2666 new grants), 34666 active awards, 8000 grants defunded 18.7% of all grants are defunded, or 75% of all those who were renewing 2/
Forward funding grants. Let's formalize this. These are all fake made up numbers. We start with a $32B appropriation to fund $750k/yr 4yr awards. Right now all labs are on one year awards with noncom renewals, but we switch entirely to four year forward funding. Let's look year by year 1/
@GovPressOffice on X is making tweets in DJT style and I find this very amusing. It's an account validated as associated with the governor's office.
No. Money cannot be in two places at once. Let's say the NIH extramural is $33B. For single year grants and noncom renewals, $33B each year is spent on research. With four year forward funded grants for everything instead, $12.375B sits in the bank and $20.6B is spent on research.
If you ran a company and one of your officers told you he did this with your resources, you would tell him to undo it ASAP or else he is fired. Such a large sequestration of research funds is utterly indefensible. The NIH extramural component of the appropriation exists to fund research.
Let me say this really clearly: Forward year funding of grants is a very inefficient accounting practice. It leaves money that could fund research waiting for future years to fund research. Wasted money. This funding mechanism should be a well justified exception ONLY, and never the default.
They are the worst.
If all grants were 4 year forward funded, 37.5% of the NIH appropriation would sit on the sidelines each year.
This is not true. Four year forward funding of grants, at equilibrium, leaves 27% of the NIH appropriation sitting waiting to be used in a future year. There is no time at which this strategy results in the same research output per year as the previous NIH strategy. It’s a HUGE NIH budget cut.
bsky.app/profile/blak...
It sits at NIH waiting for the later years of the four year forward funded grants. The payline will recover in four years but the number of concurrent funded grants will be reduced, a lot. It's a large large NIH funding cut in disguise.
Half of that long term reduction in workforce will occur in the first full year it is used.
If all grants were 4 yr fwd funded. 25% would have three years in escrow. 25% would have 2, 25% 1, and 25% would be in their last year. Grand average of 1.5 years in escrow for 4 yr grants. That's a 27% decrease in the number of funded grants. 1/
This is not correct. The number of new grants funded each year will recover. But the number of concurrent active grants will never recover. Doing this for four years is in the ballpark of a 25-30% reduction in NIH extramural.
No, your are correct, hope is not a strategy.
I am hearing from leadership at scientific societies that there is broad bipartisan consensus against the Trump War on Science. Congress will not be back in session until the day after Labor Day, but it may well be the case that Congress "has our back."
Small update: NSF source confirms that new funding opportunities at the agency are currently frozen, which is what the EO dictates (until a new review policy is implemented). Source is hopeful the freeze will be lifted in the coming days though.
The judge was quoted as "I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” “discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community” “Have we no shame" I do not think the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling. They open themselves to being labelled racists.
The lower court ruled the grants had to be restored pending the appeals process, and the appeals court agreed. You think the Supreme Court will override the lower court ruling and re-halt the grants?
I think the hold at NIH is mostly about whether the Supreme Court will allow the DEI grant halts to continue pending the appeal process, or will require them to be restored pending the appeals process. They should be restored currently... Ruling expected this week. 2/2
Last week's EO is in clear violation of federal law that gives Institute Directors e.g., the Director of NINDS or NIGMS etc, the final decision making authority in issuing grants of more than $50,000. The Institute Directors know this. See b), 3), a) www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/... 1/
I think he will make more and more outlandish moves until he is impeached. Then he will achieve martyrdom to enhance the value of his grifting. The risk is staying on for too long, because if he has to be accountable for the outcomes of his actions, he will lose all value.
More amazing progress in treating depression using neuromodulation rather than pharmaceutical approaches.
It is glorious for August in Augusta.
It works surprisingly well and easily in lab rodents. Humans are not lab rodents, but in this case I think some transfer is likely.
This begs the question: What would make a BCI superior? There are lots of factors, but cost is always one, as well as stability over time, ease of use, and patient burden. Right now China is not winning on any of these. Synchron and Precision Neuroscience are. But, it is an evolving story.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/... 2/2
Here is the US code indicating that Institute Directors have final grant deciding authority. 42 U.S. Code § 284 b) 3) (3)Before an award is made...the Director of such national research institute or national center shall... (A)review and make the FINAL decision Link follows 1/
China has made brain computer interfaces a strategic area of investment in their tech roadmap. They absolutely are competitive, and my sense is that they will have superior BCIs in the market within the next five years. www.scmp.com/news/china/s...
NIH Statute Question: How much grant making authority does the Director (Aa Presidential appointee) of the NIH have? 1/2
Congress cannot stop the administration from forward-funding grants, [Susan] Collins said in a brief interview. “It means billions will effectively be put in escrow and won’t actually be spent on research for a number of years to come.” -Tammy Baldwin rollcall.com/2025/08/05/b...
For those interested in this course, it is 1 credit hour delivered in 12 one hour sessions, about two weeks in between each session. We have materials, feel free to email me. It's very mainstream leadership training content.
I took leadership training about 8 years after I set up my lab. I wished I had taken it before I started my lab. So I (along with friends) created a leadership training course for grad students, postdocs, and resident. It broadly facilitates effective team and leader behavior.
It mostly provides cover for GOP Congressmen and Senators to go against the White House on this issue. 14 GOP Senators did just that last week.
The Congressional General Accountability Office issued a legal decision: Trump is using illegal impoundment at NIH. The GAO is nonpartisan, works for Congress, and is the supreme audit institution of the federal government of the United States. www.gao.gov/products/b-3...
Why are you insulting mediocre scientists like that?
‘Seek Funding’ Step Added To Scientific Method
LOLSOB I was in grad school in the biomedical sciences in the 90s: the misogyny was off the charts AND we had so little language to describe it.
"UC never met a lawsuit it didn't want to settle." Quote by the head of the Keck Center.
Perhaps as a historical analogy, there used to be people who manually calculated satellite orbits for NASA. My PhD advisor worked as one of them in the early 1960s. The calculator took over their jobs, but of course there are many more jobs today for folks working in space travel than in 1962.
As raw numbers those are significant, but cloture is unlikely to be an issue on this. This provision ⤵️ (I learned since I posted that sub-thread) will (in effect) be in the HHS bill when it comes to the floor, so the burden would be on anyone trying to strike it. bsky.app/profile/kdby...
Perhaps most importantly, 14 GOP Senators went to Vought a few nights ago. There are 47 Dem Senators. 14+47 can control the floor of the Senate and get cloture.
The Senate basically said 1) We see you using multi-year awards 2) You told us these awards dramatically reduce the number of projects funded 3) please itemize this for us for each of the past fiscal years It leaves other action open.
They have to issue a report detailing how many fewer grants they issued in FY25 than other years because of multiyear awards within 60 days of the bill being enacted. That, specifically, makes NIH accountable for the impacts of the multiyear award on the number of active projects.
See page 161
"by this model in fiscal year 2025, and the selection criteria to identify grants to be funded by the multi-year approach. "
"in fiscal year 2025, and the number and dollar amount of awards made to early career scientists using the multi-year funding model. Additionally, NIH is directed to provide the Committee with an analysis of the types of research funded"
"new awards in fiscal year 2025 that were made under this mechanism by Institute and Center, the fiscal year 2025 decrease in the number of awards for each Institute and Center compared to fiscal year 2024, the number of grant applications from early career researchers received by NIH "
In the report: "The Committee directs NIH to submit a report within 60 days of enactment on grants and contracts that were forward funded for each fiscal year from 2019–2024 disaggregated by Institute, Center, and funding mechanism as well as on the number of "
Need to halt increased multi-year funding for the rest of FY25, too.
The bill is not posted but multiple sources tell me that it contains a provision that multi-year funding cannot exceed fiscal year 2024 levels. I will check as soon as it is posted.
He is a + fielder. Middle of the pack hitter. Rental until November. Free agent thereafter. Contract is ~$6m/yr. Mutual option for next year.
Multiyear grants are specifically such poor stewardship that NIH should need a really good reason to make an exception to fund something multiyear.
There is no House cut yet. Their subcommittee markup will occur in early Sept.
For Congress to have the back of NIH intramural and extramural, they will need to do MUCH more than just pass a suitable budget.
🧪 Senate appropriators say: NIH's budget gets a... boost! Rather than 40% cut, NIH gets a $400M *increase* in the Senate committee bill for FY26 (about +1%). "Congress has your back," said @murray.senate.gov. ADVOCACY MATTERS! There's still a long road (esp in the House), so keep up pressure.
I agree. This move is about political implications. When 14 GOP Senators tell you to do something, and you would have 2/3rds against you at 20, you need to think carefully.
Lots of cardiovascular physiologists.... Yes, cardiopulmonary studies were evolving/maturing in the early 90s, while brain studies were just ramping up, so I am not surprised impressions vary by field.
In my PhD and postdoctoral labs, each PI had the same experience. They only ever asked for one R01 and got other funding from contracts or private or PPG, but the primary R01 was always awarded from 1970 until after 2000. And they did not spend much time writing grants, at least in terms % effort.
I think Vought was planning a "pocket rescission" in which NIH would simply not spend its appropriation and return the money to the treasury on Oct 1. But 14 GOP senators told him not to, and that is awfully close to the threshold for impeachment and conviction (which is 20).
I think this only applies to a) I think c) and d) will be resolved legally in coming weeks. I think b) will destroy biomedical research as we know it.
Not clear what this means. Please respond a) NIH will spend its appropriation FY25 b) NIH will drop the multiyear grant approach c) NIH will abandon its DEI halting of grants d) NIH will abandon extorting hundreds of millions from elite universities under the fabricated guide of antisemitism
It will be roughly 4% the rest of this fiscal year, and 10% of all labs will be permanently de-funded. Of course, they could get funding later, but only if a different lab is de-funded. 30% de-funded if it goes all three years as planned now. There has never been a threat to US science like this.
You should ask current investigators about the fraction of time they spend writing grants and their career average success rate, and compare it to pre-2003 NIH. Things are NOT the same.
If all NIH grant awards were converted from 5 one year awards with noncompetitive renewals to single five year awards, then 40% of the research labs would be defunded. The current plan, because not all awards are five year, and because not all are multiyear, would defund 30% of all research labs.
Oh, what I would give to see temperatures and dewpoints in the 60s. This morning during my run it was 80 with a dewpoint of 76.