login
How sequestration is impacting research 2013 (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-06-20 1:42 PM in reply to: Artemis |
Pro  5755    |  Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013Originally posted by Artemis Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS This thread only serves to remind me why gov. shouldn't be involved in a lot of things. They pick winners and losers and when anyone gets their little piece of the pie cut or reduced, well.....its just not fair. That is why we have out of control spending and a growing 16.5 trillion dollar debt. As far as Harvard goes, let them fund their own research with part of their 32 BILLION DOLLAR endowment. I don't think I said it wasn't fair. Peer review for grants works very well. I would like to see changes to the budget allocation and apportioning process at NIH, but the process for review ranking and of conpetitive grants is a good one. Also, as I said, investment in medical research has a direct social and economic benefit. A 65 to 1 ROI is pretty good. I disagree that peer review of grants works well. It doesn't! It's almost entirely based on who you are and who you are working in. It's very very difficult to break into that as a new investigator. I've heard that some of the study sections are somewhat political (i.e. NIAID), but I've done quite a number of them and haven't seen much of that. When you do see it, it's usually an older reviewer making the comment. I've been pretty pretty impressed with the efforts at my funding institute to put together impartial panels. You need a strong PO and SRO to make sure the meetings stay focused. Not sure what would work better than peer review. As fa as new investigators getting funded, I completely agree. That's why I was saying I wish the strategy was to make more grants available by lowering the max amount per award. I would rather have one $75k grant than zero $300k grants. |
| 2013-06-20 2:20 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Science Nerd 28760   Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by Artemis I've heard that some of the study sections are somewhat political (i.e. NIAID), but I've done quite a number of them and haven't seen much of that. When you do see it, it's usually an older reviewer making the comment. I've been pretty pretty impressed with the efforts at my funding institute to put together impartial panels. You need a strong PO and SRO to make sure the meetings stay focused. Not sure what would work better than peer review. As fa as new investigators getting funded, I completely agree. That's why I was saying I wish the strategy was to make more grants available by lowering the max amount per award. I would rather have one $75k grant than zero $300k grants. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS This thread only serves to remind me why gov. shouldn't be involved in a lot of things. They pick winners and losers and when anyone gets their little piece of the pie cut or reduced, well.....its just not fair. That is why we have out of control spending and a growing 16.5 trillion dollar debt. As far as Harvard goes, let them fund their own research with part of their 32 BILLION DOLLAR endowment. I don't think I said it wasn't fair. Peer review for grants works very well. I would like to see changes to the budget allocation and apportioning process at NIH, but the process for review ranking and of conpetitive grants is a good one. Also, as I said, investment in medical research has a direct social and economic benefit. A 65 to 1 ROI is pretty good. I disagree that peer review of grants works well. It doesn't! It's almost entirely based on who you are and who you are working in. It's very very difficult to break into that as a new investigator. That makes sense. I'm in NHLBI, which is somewhat political. Doesn't help that my current PI seems intent on burning bridges with reviewers. Totally agree on one $75k grant than zero $300k grants. It would definitely help for new investigators. Or have an expansion of the F/K program with cuts in the R? There are a lot of ways they could help young investigators, but they probably won't. |
| 2013-06-20 2:34 PM in reply to: Artemis |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by Artemis I'm NHLBI too (almost always, except right now I have one--R21, wish me luck--into NIBIB). Artemis, what kind of research do you do?Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by Artemis I've heard that some of the study sections are somewhat political (i.e. NIAID), but I've done quite a number of them and haven't seen much of that. When you do see it, it's usually an older reviewer making the comment. I've been pretty pretty impressed with the efforts at my funding institute to put together impartial panels. You need a strong PO and SRO to make sure the meetings stay focused. Not sure what would work better than peer review. As fa as new investigators getting funded, I completely agree. That's why I was saying I wish the strategy was to make more grants available by lowering the max amount per award. I would rather have one $75k grant than zero $300k grants. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by NXS This thread only serves to remind me why gov. shouldn't be involved in a lot of things. They pick winners and losers and when anyone gets their little piece of the pie cut or reduced, well.....its just not fair. That is why we have out of control spending and a growing 16.5 trillion dollar debt. As far as Harvard goes, let them fund their own research with part of their 32 BILLION DOLLAR endowment. I don't think I said it wasn't fair. Peer review for grants works very well. I would like to see changes to the budget allocation and apportioning process at NIH, but the process for review ranking and of conpetitive grants is a good one. Also, as I said, investment in medical research has a direct social and economic benefit. A 65 to 1 ROI is pretty good. I disagree that peer review of grants works well. It doesn't! It's almost entirely based on who you are and who you are working in. It's very very difficult to break into that as a new investigator. That makes sense. I'm in NHLBI, which is somewhat political. Doesn't help that my current PI seems intent on burning bridges with reviewers. Totally agree on one $75k grant than zero $300k grants. It would definitely help for new investigators. Or have an expansion of the F/K program with cuts in the R? There are a lot of ways they could help young investigators, but they probably won't. +1 for increased number of grants with reduced funding lines. Even if the study sections themselves aren't run in a political fashion, they're definitely looking at investigators funding history. If you don't get a grant, can't have funding history, so it still ends up favoring the big guys. The private foundations' monies are down too. It could get pretty bleak. Even more bleak :/ |
| 2013-06-20 2:36 PM in reply to: switch |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by switch I'm NHLBI too (almost always, except right now I have one--R21, wish me luck--into NIBIB). Artemis, what kind of research do you do? +1 for increased number of grants with reduced funding lines. Even if the study sections themselves aren't run in a political fashion, they're definitely looking at investigators funding history. If you don't get a grant, can't have funding history, so it still ends up favoring the big guys. The private foundations' monies are down too. It could get pretty bleak. Even more bleak :/ Good luck on your R21!! What research do you do? I do research on Pulmonary Hypertension, but focus on how it affects the heart. AHA doesn't like to give us money because "we're a lung disease" and ATS doesn't do a lot of funding. It's a tough area. We're getting a lot of money from drug companies right now who are interested to see what their drug does in our animal model. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but it's keeping the lights on. |
| 2013-06-20 2:50 PM in reply to: Artemis |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Oh! AHA is so nudgy. Glad you have the lights on. Pulmonary hypertension--awesome! I might be able to follow what you do :) I have two jobs with lots of overlap: I'm a research assistant for a pediatric cardiologist and do biochemistry based basic science research on congenital heart disease. Just found out our R01 got triaged--ouch. Hopefully going to flip it for a specifical call from AHA for HTS studies. I also am a grant/paper writer for a congenital heart surgeon (different institution). His stuff is mostly clinical, but the R21 is for a cool valve project in an animal model. *fingers crossed* |
| 2013-06-20 6:48 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 We need to drag Oysterboy into the conversation, He's at UFL. I'm on a grant he submitted earlier this year, and we've done some work together. Thanks to BT! Weird coincidence - he took my postdoc slot when I left NIH, but we never met. I do computational drug discovery (screening, modeling, chem and bio informatics), so my primary always ends up being NIGMS, secondary NLM. All cancer related. Edited by BrianRunsPhilly 2013-06-20 6:49 PM |
| 2013-06-20 7:47 PM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly We need to drag Oysterboy into the conversation, He's at UFL. I'm on a grant he submitted earlier this year, and we've done some work together. Thanks to BT! Weird coincidence - he took my postdoc slot when I left NIH, but we never met. I do computational drug discovery (screening, modeling, chem and bio informatics), so my primary always ends up being NIGMS, secondary NLM. All cancer related. Yeah, get his butt over here. Brian, your work is really cool. I've just recently been working with the boys over in med pharm lately doing some HTS on an actin mutation we have, screened against the Spectrum Compounds. Just got our hits, starting our secondary screen tomorrow. It's kinda like Christmas Eve;) Wow. Dork out! |
| 2013-06-20 8:31 PM in reply to: switch |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by switch Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly We need to drag Oysterboy into the conversation, He's at UFL. I'm on a grant he submitted earlier this year, and we've done some work together. Thanks to BT! Weird coincidence - he took my postdoc slot when I left NIH, but we never met. I do computational drug discovery (screening, modeling, chem and bio informatics), so my primary always ends up being NIGMS, secondary NLM. All cancer related. Yeah, get his butt over here. Brian, your work is really cool. I've just recently been working with the boys over in med pharm lately doing some HTS on an actin mutation we have, screened against the Spectrum Compounds. Just got our hits, starting our secondary screen tomorrow. It's kinda like Christmas Eve Wow. Dork out! Haha he's a good guy. We've spent hours on the phone talking shop and tri. I did 16 years in big Pharma before bailing and setting up my own shop. How do you feel about Collins pushing through funding for NCATS? I see why he did it, but I was not in favor of it. It's a huge pile of money to stand up a new center for intramural research at a time when extramural funding rates are dropping. FWIW, I did my postdoc in Collins group back when he was running the Human Genome Project. |
| 2013-06-21 10:22 AM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Extreme Veteran 668 , Minnesota | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Something I didn't know or think about.....Good thread! |
| 2013-06-21 10:56 AM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly Originally posted by switch Haha he's a good guy. We've spent hours on the phone talking shop and tri. I did 16 years in big Pharma before bailing and setting up my own shop. How do you feel about Collins pushing through funding for NCATS? I see why he did it, but I was not in favor of it. It's a huge pile of money to stand up a new center for intramural research at a time when extramural funding rates are dropping. FWIW, I did my postdoc in Collins group back when he was running the Human Genome Project. Originally posted by BrianRunsPhilly We need to drag Oysterboy into the conversation, He's at UFL. I'm on a grant he submitted earlier this year, and we've done some work together. Thanks to BT! Weird coincidence - he took my postdoc slot when I left NIH, but we never met. I do computational drug discovery (screening, modeling, chem and bio informatics), so my primary always ends up being NIGMS, secondary NLM. All cancer related. Yeah, get his butt over here. Brian, your work is really cool. I've just recently been working with the boys over in med pharm lately doing some HTS on an actin mutation we have, screened against the Spectrum Compounds. Just got our hits, starting our secondary screen tomorrow. It's kinda like Christmas Eve;) Wow. Dork out! Brian, FWIW, I am not ignoring this, but I don't know enough to comment (I really live under a rock). So I'm going to read up a bit and get back to you. It seems like I should both know about it and have an opinion:) |
| 2013-07-03 11:36 AM in reply to: 0 |
Expert 721 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 I'll jump in Oh, and the work I am my colleagues do is more in the area of improving hospital safety and quality of care for children, and helping parents and teenagers quit or not start smoking. Hardly big money makers for anyone! Edited by momandmd 2013-07-03 11:37 AM |
. I'm a division chief and it's really hard to be encouraging my faculty to go into academics when I'm really not sure there will be funding, and as has been pointed out, there are often politics associated with getting NIH funding. I have a colleague who got a 9th percentile score on a grant, but the institute she applied to is only funding to the 7th percentile- these percentiles are nuts and we are going to lose a generation of researchers. I'm not opposed to spending cuts, and I like the idea of changing funding recommendations (why don't we move to $400K/year max for a standard R01?), rather than funding fewer grants. | 2013-07-03 11:59 AM in reply to: momandmd |
| Member 169 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 I'm in this industry as well. I'm sales for a large supplies and equipment manufacturer. Obviously this not only does this affect my pay check when researchers aren't able to purchase supplies and equipment for research, but it also affects the people that are manufacturing those supplies and equipment; including that guy that's been building ultra low freezers for 15 years. If he gets laid off because of slow orders he's not putting money into the economy. It's not only the researchers that this affects. I've heard from some of my customers that travel internationally to scientific meetings that researchers from other countries will have impromptu meetings to discuss how they can take advantage of the US cutting back on research. Lots of countries are putting money into research and we are cutting back. |
| 2013-07-03 1:01 PM in reply to: momandmd |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by momandmd I'll jump in Oh, and the work I am my colleagues do is more in the area of improving hospital safety and quality of care for children, and helping parents and teenagers quit or not start smoking. Hardly big money makers for anyone! We just got our score for a Phase II SBIR back yesterday. We did decent, certainly a good score, but in the gray zone for this year. I'm frantically working on three grants with collaborators because the new mantra seems to be put as many R01's in as possible because the percentile is so low. I can't see how this is an effective use of time. And I could not agree more on R01 limits. |
| 2013-07-30 10:28 AM in reply to: BrianRunsPhilly |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 So, anyone know people who are hiring? I'm losing my Postdoc position as of 12/1. I know it's rough trying to find a job, so I'm trying everything I can think of. Definitely open to relocation - Philly, Chicago, or DC would be ideal, but pretty much anything is on the table. |
| 2013-07-30 10:36 AM in reply to: Artemis |
Regular 5477 LHOTP | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by Artemis So, anyone know people who are hiring? I'm losing my Postdoc position as of 12/1. I know it's rough trying to find a job, so I'm trying everything I can think of. Definitely open to relocation - Philly, Chicago, or DC would be ideal, but pretty much anything is on the table. Ugh! I'm so sorry. I don't know of anything off the top of my head, but I haven't been paying attention. I'll see what I can find out :) |
| 2013-07-30 11:12 AM in reply to: Artemis |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by Artemis So, anyone know people who are hiring? I'm losing my Postdoc position as of 12/1. I know it's rough trying to find a job, so I'm trying everything I can think of. Definitely open to relocation - Philly, Chicago, or DC would be ideal, but pretty much anything is on the table. Send me a PM, I can ask around. |
| 2013-07-30 5:52 PM in reply to: Artemis |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by Artemis So, anyone know people who are hiring? I'm losing my Postdoc position as of 12/1. I know it's rough trying to find a job, so I'm trying everything I can think of. Definitely open to relocation - Philly, Chicago, or DC would be ideal, but pretty much anything is on the table. Sorry to hear. I think you have the right attitude in being willing to move. There are job openings, but you have to go to them once you find them. Good luck! |
| 2013-07-31 9:13 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Artemis So, anyone know people who are hiring? I'm losing my Postdoc position as of 12/1. I know it's rough trying to find a job, so I'm trying everything I can think of. Definitely open to relocation - Philly, Chicago, or DC would be ideal, but pretty much anything is on the table. Sorry to hear. I think you have the right attitude in being willing to move. There are job openings, but you have to go to them once you find them. Good luck! Very true. in my career I've lived in: PA (2x), DE, MD, NJ, MI, CA and Berlin. Unless you are in academia and obtain tenure that's the nature of science. |
| 2013-07-31 1:15 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Science Nerd 28760 Redwood City, California | Subject: RE: How sequestration is impacting research 2013 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Artemis So, anyone know people who are hiring? I'm losing my Postdoc position as of 12/1. I know it's rough trying to find a job, so I'm trying everything I can think of. Definitely open to relocation - Philly, Chicago, or DC would be ideal, but pretty much anything is on the table. Sorry to hear. I think you have the right attitude in being willing to move. There are job openings, but you have to go to them once you find them. Good luck! I think my husband and I have always known that we'd be moving around for jobs. We're not set on staying any one place. The preferred cities are just because he can transfer within the same company, so it makes it easier. It's pretty tough to stay at any one University/job too long without getting tenure. I don't think that tenure is a road I want to take anyway. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK