odanny
Diamond Member
One wonders just how low Trump will push this anti-intellectual crusade he is on, and also in doubt is whether his poorly educated supporters can ever understand the implications of any of this.
One rule that the Trump team knows well, and is implementing as it is designed to be implemented, is the Shock Doctrine which is implemented under the cover of a natural or man made disaster, in this case the latter being the elevation of Donald Trump.
This news almost goes uncovered in light of all the other disasters getting more attention.
The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars in biomedical research funding, alarming academic leaders who said it would imperil their universities and medical centers and drawing swift rebukes from Democrats who predicted dire consequences for scientific research.
The move, announced Friday night by the National Institutes of Health, drastically cuts the NIH’s funding for “indirect” costs related to research. These are the administrative requirements, facilities and other operations that many scientists say are essential but some Republicans have argued are superfluous.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”
In a post on social media, NIH said the change would save more than $4 billion a year, effective immediately. The note singled out Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University’s multibillion-dollar endowments, implying that many universities do not need the added federal funding.
The policy, essentially a massive budget cut to science and medical centers across the country, was quickly denounced as devastating by universities and research organizations.
The move could threaten research already underway and noted that their universities have a fraction of the endowments of schools such as Harvard and Yale. Industry leaders also questioned whether the move was legal.
“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” Matt Owens, president of COGR, Council on Government Relations, an association of research institutions, academic medical centers and research institutes, wrote in an email.
One rule that the Trump team knows well, and is implementing as it is designed to be implemented, is the Shock Doctrine which is implemented under the cover of a natural or man made disaster, in this case the latter being the elevation of Donald Trump.
This news almost goes uncovered in light of all the other disasters getting more attention.
The Trump administration is cutting billions of dollars in biomedical research funding, alarming academic leaders who said it would imperil their universities and medical centers and drawing swift rebukes from Democrats who predicted dire consequences for scientific research.
The move, announced Friday night by the National Institutes of Health, drastically cuts the NIH’s funding for “indirect” costs related to research. These are the administrative requirements, facilities and other operations that many scientists say are essential but some Republicans have argued are superfluous.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in its announcement. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”
In a post on social media, NIH said the change would save more than $4 billion a year, effective immediately. The note singled out Harvard University, Yale University and Johns Hopkins University’s multibillion-dollar endowments, implying that many universities do not need the added federal funding.
The policy, essentially a massive budget cut to science and medical centers across the country, was quickly denounced as devastating by universities and research organizations.
The move could threaten research already underway and noted that their universities have a fraction of the endowments of schools such as Harvard and Yale. Industry leaders also questioned whether the move was legal.
“This is a surefire way to cripple lifesaving research and innovation,” Matt Owens, president of COGR, Council on Government Relations, an association of research institutions, academic medical centers and research institutes, wrote in an email.
