Funding
mikethemadbiologist | June 15, 2009Recently, Newsweek published an article by Sharon Begley that claimed that the conflict between high-profile publication and quick release of medically-important data has led to delays in medical advancements (ScienceBlogling Orac takes down her particular example). But Begley is confusing a symptom, publication practices, with a much larger problem: incentives.
What do I mean by incentives?
Last week, I described how the data release policies of large and small sequencing centers differ due to distinct funding incentives: the larger centers are paid to rapidly produce lots of high…
mikethemadbiologist | June 8, 2009Should any data, not just genomic data, be held hostage by the grant award process?
Hunh? Let me back up...
By way of ScienceBlogling Daniel MacArthur, I came across this excellent post by David Dooling about, among other things, how different genome centers, based on size, have different release policies (seriously, read his post). Dooling writes (boldface mine):
The more interesting question is: why aren't all data and research released rapidly and freely available? Since the Bermuda Principles were agreed to in 1996, all genome sequencing centers have submitted their data, from raw…
mikethemadbiologist | June 7, 2009I realize that the typical format for blogging is to find something that pisses you off and then rant about it, but I actually like the recent workshop report by NHGRI, "The Future of DNA Sequencing at the National Human Genome Research Institute." (pdf file) While I'll have more to say about the report overall, I liked the section about the Human Microbiome Project (the goal of the HMP is to use sequencing technologies to understand how the microbes that live on us and in us affect health and disease).
I was happy to see that NHGRI still thinks that it has a role in funding the HMP. It's…
mikethemadbiologist | May 2, 2009You might have about the NIH Challenge Grants funded by the stimulus package. The grants are for two years, with a total (direct and indirect costs) of $1 million (there are other grants available too, but this post isn't about those grants). There will be roughly 200-300 funded grants. And I've heard that there are 27,000 applications. Yep, you read that right.
And I don't think this number is too much of an exaggeration (maybe three-fold, maybe not)--I have good reason to think that Massachusetts General Hospital alone submitted hundreds of grants (one number I've heard is 800). Most…
mikethemadbiologist | April 4, 2009Jonathan Chait, in discussing the institutional problems that Obama faces in getting his agenda passed, describes Blue Dog Democratic Senator Ben Nelson's opposition to direct federal financing of student loans:
Recent years have shown beyond a doubt that the direct lending program works better. Every independent analysis--by the Congressional Budget Office, by the Office of Management and Budget under each of the last three presidents, and by the New America Foundation--has found that direct lending is cheaper. The guaranteed-loan program managed to cling to life through its congressional…
amillikan | March 10, 2009President Obama signed an executive order today to lift the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research signed into place by President Bush in 2001. The ban limited funding to fewer than two dozen existing lines of embryonic stem cells, severely crippling scientists who use embryonic stem cells to research diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's, among others—now, over a hundred lines developed since then will be eligible for funding. Said ScienceBlogger James Hrynyshyn of The Island of Doubt, "the news that...science will no longer be held hostage to fundamentalist…
terrasig | March 6, 2009We're really fortunate here at Terra Sigillata World Headquarters to have a strong, dedicated readership. But I'm always tickled when we attract new readers and attention to the views we express here.
Late yesterday I received a very nice e-mail from Andrew Plemmons Pratt, Managing Editor of Science Progress, a blog of the well-known liberal think tank, Center for American Progress.
In his post, Don't Bury the Next Generation of Researchers Under Billions in NIH Funding, Andrew notes my enthusiasm in our 23 Feb post for being sure that junior investigators already in the pipeline not be…
mikethemadbiologist | February 24, 2009Digby makes a very good point about the real world effects of conservative propaganda:
I'm convinced that one of the mistakes we've made over the years is not telling enough stories of real people who were affected by the conservative movement's deregulation fervor. When they can keep it all abstract and clean it sounds great. It's not so impressive when you see the human results of their "ideology."
With that in mind, consider Senator Orrin Hatch's (R-Wackaloon) claim that Utah doesn't need the stimulus money ("Utah is going to get by fine whether we get that money or not.") in light of what…
purepedantry | February 18, 2009Rather than funding new grants, most of the fiscal stimulus to NIH will be going to grants that have already been reviewed. From Science Insider:
The National Institutes of Health will dedicate most of its $8.2 billion for research from the economic stimulus bill to funding grant applications it has already received and to supplementing existing grants. A smaller amount, on the order of $100 million to $200 million, will go to new grant applications it receives in the coming months.
...
Because NIH has to spend the stimulus money within those 2 years, it is under pressure to start sending…
mikethemadbiologist | February 17, 2009...at one point, anyway. It was good to see Pelosi and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party hold the line against the Blue Dogs. Anyway, here are some science-, health-, and education-related stimulus increases:
Pell grants for higher education: $15,840,000,000
School improvement grants awarded based on the number of homeless students identified in a state: $70,000,000
Energy efficiency and conservation block grants: $3,200,000,000
Weatherization Assistance Program (increases maximum income level and maximum assistance): $5,000,000,000
Advanced batteries manufacturing, including…
purepedantry | February 12, 2009SEA (again) has the details of the result of the House and Senate conference bill for economic stimulus. Here are the parts related to science:
Provides $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, for basic research in fundamental science and engineering - which spurs discovery and innovation.
Provides $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, which funds research in such areas as climate science, biofuels, high-energy physics, nuclear physics and fusion energy sciences - areas crucial to our energy future.
Provides $400 million for the Advanced Research Project…
mikethemadbiologist | February 12, 2009From Speaker Pelosi's office:
Transform our Economy with Science and Technology: To secure America's role as a world leader in a competitive global economy, we are renewing America's investments in basic research and development, in training students for an innovation economy, and in deploying new technologies into the marketplace. This will help businesses in every community succeed in a global economy.
Investing in Scientific Research (More than $15 Billion)
Provides $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, for basic research in fundamental science and engineering - which spurs…
mikethemadbiologist | February 9, 2009These Twitter feeds, captured by Atrios and written by 'moderate' Democrat Claire McCaskill, make it so perfectly clear that many elected officials have no idea how things are funded:
"Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill.Many Ds don't like it, but needed to be done.The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT."
And then:
"Going to Museum of Am History today.Haven't been since it re-opened.Want to check it out.Also grocery store and later a movie date with Joe."
As Atrios notes:
Hopefully she enjoys the museum. Amusingly, she also voted for the Coburn amendment which forbids the…
mikethemadbiologist | February 9, 2009...so why did the Blue Dog Democrats and conservative Republicans cut it? According to the latest about the Recovery and Reinvestment Act (funny how everyone's forgetting about the reinvestment part), the Blue Dogs and 'moderate' Republicans cut in half the proposed funds to supplement state budgets. This defeats the whole purpose of a stimulus.
Hardly a day goes by in any state where there aren't newspaper stories about state and local budget cuts. For the most part, these aren't scaling back future projects, but cuts in ongoing, existing projects, such as education. Yet the Blue Dogs…
purepedantry | February 7, 2009Over at SEA they have a point-by-point description of the Senate economic stimulus bill. Obviously what is actually passed will be sorted out in conference committee but here is what is included about science:
Science:
National Science Foundation (NSF) Research: $1.2 billion total for NSF including: $1 billion to help America compete globally; $150 million for scientific infrastructure; and $50 million for competitive grants to improve the quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): $1.3 billion total…
mikethemadbiologist | February 7, 2009More like this please:
And part deux:
Much better. He is kinda new to the job, after all...
purepedantry | February 6, 2009David 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 into a political football. In general, federal support for science is something pretty much everyone in both parties agrees should be maximized, even if they haven't always followed through by providing the cash. The fight over the stimulus bill could erode that consensus, creating problems for the…
mikethemadbiologist | February 6, 2009Via Greg Sargent, we learn that Blue Dog Democrat Senator Ben Nelson is still a repulsive person.
Total Reductions: $80 billion
Eliminations:
Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, School improvement, Child Nutrition, Firefighters, Transportation Security Administration, Coast Guard, Prisons, COPS Hiring, Violence Against Women, NASA, NSF, Western Area Power Administration, CDC, Food Stamps
*****************************
Reductions:
Public Transit $3.4 billion, School Construction $60 billion
Fucking unbelievable. Intelligent Designer knows that Democrats can be pretty screwed up, but,…
mikethemadbiologist | February 6, 2009'Blue dog' conservative Democratic Senator Nelson's list of proposed cuts from the National Recovery and Reinvestment Act was leaked to Huffington Post (the documents are available at TPM). I've never understood the Blue Dogs. While conservatives are full blown batshit loony (Tax cuts today! Tax cuts tomorrow! Tax cuts fo'evuh!), there is at least some kind of ideology there (albeit twisted). What motivates the Blue Dogs? Do they like the power of being spoilers? Does it make them feel good when they can be the ones to make the deal? Do they not realize that 'stimulus' means spending…
mikethemadbiologist | January 29, 2009Congress, under pressure from Republicans*, cuts $200 million to refurbish the National Mall:
On Tuesday evening the House Rules Committee stripped two provisions from the stimulus package: the family planning money that President Obama personally lobbied Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to remove yesterday, and the $200 million to refurbish the National Mall.
The move was made amidst a torrent of GOP criticism about wasteful or non-stimulative spending in the bill, including those two projects, as the president attemps to woo House GOPers.
The Rules Committee provisions -- "4) strikes funding…