Last weekend, a letter from acting NIH director Raynard S. Kington was distributed to NIH investigators and began making the rounds in the blogosphere as well. The letter detailed specific plans for the $8.2 billion of NIH funding included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus package. ScienceBloggers immediately expressed fear that a dramatic increase in funding could lead to a repeat of the 1990s "lost generation" crisis, when young scientists attracted by generous grants found themselves without career opportunities when funding failed to keep pace with demand. A lively discussion developed around how best to spend the money to avoid unintended consequences of a sudden increase in funding.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over the weekend, Comrade PhysioProf at DrugMonkey posted on the details of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds distribution for the US National Institutes of Health.
For some unusual reason, the letter that was sent to NIH investigators and posted on the NIH website has…
David Goldston, writing in Nature, echoes a point I have been trying to make about the science provisions of the economic stimulus package. He lists some reasons why scientists should be wary of getting our funding this way:
First, being included in the stimulus measure could turn science spending…
SciBlings Alex Palazzo (The Daily Transcript) and Mike the Mad Biologist have both held forth recently on Robert Weinberg's editorial in Cell. Weinberg, one of the big daddies of early oncogene research and mentor to some of the best cancer researchers of my generation, expressed his fears that…
If you have happened to browse DrugMonkey, you'll have noticed a discussion about how the NIH should spend its share of the stimulus package (~$10 billion). (For more info click here.) Unfortunately the plan, according to the NIH statement is the same usual BS - all quick fixes and no forethought…