How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investigation (2019)

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by panabee on Monday January 17, 2022 @04:16PM (#29971768)

the NIH is awesome. we owe those civil servants a debt of gratitude for sacrificing higher compensation in industry and performing as well as they do given the constraints.

breakthrough ideas typically come from unconventional ideas, i.e., risky ideas or ideas likely to fail -- and thus waste taxpayer money.

yet the funding process is mostly about conforming to traditional assumptions, which naturally gates scientific breakthroughs.

the problem lies upstream. politicians don't allow the NIH to fund risky research and waste money.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by trhway on Monday January 17, 2022 @05:21PM (#29972330)

>politicians don't allow the NIH to fund risky research

how about NIH funding those gain-of-function coronavirus experiments (which included human testing) in Wuhan? And when DARPA refused to fund as too risky the additional human targeting coronavirus genetic manipulations in Wuhan, it was NIAID (led by Dr. Fauci - the top politician in life sciences today) which funded it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by hammock on Monday January 17, 2022 @06:53PM (#29973077)

>how about NIH funding those gain-of-function coronavirus experiments (which included human testing) in Wuhan?

Politicians expressly disallowed those experiments. Don't stir stuff up just to stir. It was a non-political agency exec (Fauci?) who apparently sidestepped the typical review process where they would have been killed, and funded them anyway

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by trhway on Monday January 17, 2022 @07:25PM (#29973335)

to me transfer of the research to China is exactly a typical solution by politicians - maintaining the perception of prohibition while in reality scaling the research even more into risky territory.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by dekhn on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @10:33AM (#29980644)

you know what annoys me the most about this? I wanted to be an NIH researcher (US citizen, working in the US, on non-risky research and I couldn't get funding. That NIH is funding chinese institutes really bothers me, if legit us researchers can't get funding.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by trhway on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @07:38PM (#29988318)

"You're doing it wrong" as SRCUM peddlers like to say :) If you look at EcoHealth NIH grant for Wuhan you'll see that only about 25% of the grant money actually went to Wuhan. I'd guess you in your grant application didn't have 75% allocated for general sales and administrative/whatever money black hole and thus for example couldn't hire as a visiting professor/consultant some useful people :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How life sciences work: Findings of a year-long investiga... by dekhn on Wednesday January 19, 2022 @12:44PM (#29997067)

Amusingly, after my first R01 was rejected, I kept an eye on that study section and several people submitted R01s with exactly my proposal the year after and got funded. Those were people that were likely on the study section the year before and saw my proposal.

I also learned from that if you want to get funded by a study section, you volunteer for that section for several years and then you know exactly what to say to get funded.

[ Parent | on HN ]