Biomedical research takes a hit
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 15:11 last edited by
The DEI Catch-22
Columbia researchers believe their grants are being cut because of diversity components that were imposed by the federal government.
-
wrote on 20 Mar 2025, 17:26 last edited by
Why pay researchers? We can do our own research online.... Republican think.
-
wrote on 22 Mar 2025, 00:19 last edited by
Columbia and Trump have a long history.
-
BTW, Columbia needs to grow a pair and fight back. Georgetown offers an example. These targeted budget cuts are illegal.
wrote on 24 Mar 2025, 14:39 last edited by@Piano-Dad said in Biomedical research takes a hit:
BTW, Columbia needs to grow a pair and fight back. Georgetown offers an example. These targeted budget cuts are illegal.
Indeed.
Why are other universities silent in condemning Trump’s attacks on Columbia?
Zephyr Teachout
If university leaders allow themselves to be bullied, how do we expect any other institutions to stand up?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/24/us-universities-trump-columbia
-
BTW, Columbia needs to grow a pair and fight back. Georgetown offers an example. These targeted budget cuts are illegal.
wrote on 24 Mar 2025, 17:18 last edited by@Piano-Dad said in Biomedical research takes a hit:
BTW, Columbia needs to grow a pair and fight back. Georgetown offers an example. These targeted budget cuts are illegal.
I think you'll see something if their current genuflection isn't viewed as sufficient. I can't say I blame them for capitulating thus far, even if they won a specific suit the administration could fuck with them in myriad ways, renegotiate their indirects, award far fewer grants, crawl up their ass over title VI stuff (which they're doing anyway).
-
BTW, Columbia needs to grow a pair and fight back. Georgetown offers an example. These targeted budget cuts are illegal.
wrote on 14 Apr 2025, 23:08 last edited by@Piano-Dad said in Biomedical research takes a hit:
BTW, Columbia needs to grow a pair and fight back. Georgetown offers an example. These targeted budget cuts are illegal.
Harvard says nope to the demands.
Harvard University announced Monday that it won’t comply with a list of demands from the Trump administration as part of its campaign against antisemitism, which could put almost $9 billion in funding at risk.
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2025, 13:44 last edited by wtg
Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard
An official on the administration’s antisemitism task force told the university that a letter of demands had been sent without authorization.
NYT reporting:
-
wrote on 19 Apr 2025, 23:24 last edited by
We haven’t seen any cuts at the research hospital I consult to.
-
Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard
An official on the administration’s antisemitism task force told the university that a letter of demands had been sent without authorization.
NYT reporting:
wrote on 20 Apr 2025, 01:34 last edited by“Mistake”.
-
wrote on 20 Apr 2025, 12:59 last edited by Mik
As a counterpoint, I have seen several studies that have received government funding that cannot possibly produce the stated result, primarily because the data they would need simply does not exist in any reliable and relatively complete form. There are a lot of people making a living off tax dollars generating exactly that sort of effort.
But once again, this chainsaw vs. scalpel approach is doing as much harm as good. Take the case of the Afghan Christians who received parole at the border and who now received letters from HHS telling them to self-deport by Good Friday. I do not see how this can be justified. There's a difference between controlling our borders and cruelty through a combination of zeal and sheer laziness.
-
As a counterpoint, I have seen several studies that have received government funding that cannot possibly produce the stated result, primarily because the data they would need simply does not exist in any reliable and relatively complete form. There are a lot of people making a living off tax dollars generating exactly that sort of effort.
But once again, this chainsaw vs. scalpel approach is doing as much harm as good. Take the case of the Afghan Christians who received parole at the border and who now received letters from HHS telling them to self-deport by Good Friday. I do not see how this can be justified. There's a difference between controlling our borders and cruelty through a combination of zeal and sheer laziness.
wrote on 20 Apr 2025, 13:57 last edited by wtg@Mik said in Biomedical research takes a hit:
But once again, this chainsaw vs. scalpel approach is doing as much harm as good. Take the case of the Afghan Christians who received parole at the border and who now received letters from HHS telling them to self-deport by Good Friday. I do not see how this can be justified. There's a difference between controlling our borders and cruelty through a combination of zeal and sheer laziness.
Well said, and exactly where I'm at, and for me it goes well beyond just the approach to immigration and university funding. There's a lot of shock and awe going on everywhere but I don't know how we can possibly get good results from this approach. It just seems like a big act to impress or to frighten the masses (depending on who you are) rather than something substantive.
I am doubtful that we'll be better off overall at the end and fear that we will just be more broken, angry, and isolated, both individually and as a country.
-
wrote on 21 Apr 2025, 14:42 last edited by wtg
I asked my friend for an update on things at her university.
A number of people have gotten a letter saying that their projects no longer align with the interests of the government. The school has told them that this means that from the day the letter arrives, no other charges can be made against that grant. So, instant firings of techs, students left without pay and scrambling, and the school has to support the salaries of faculty until the end of their contracts. No word yet on the axing of the previously agreed upon indirect costs rate. We have an Institute for vaccine development within the med school, so I bet they were really hit. Oh, and the delay that the feds have instituted on grant reviews have also hit hard, but no one talks about them. I feel lucky to have only had a 20% cut, and if I stay on for an extra year it can't be cut much more because I am tenured and there are rules about how much the salaries of tenured faculty can be cut when they become deadwood
. But the chances of my work being funded in the near term, when clinical trials in important areas are being cut, are pretty slim. It would be unfair both to the university and to myself if I spent all of my time for the next 3 months writing a grant proposal that has no chance of being funded 9 months later.Spoke to a colleague from Harvard who had his salary cut by 50%. He's retiring not because of the salary cut, but because of the bureaucratic morass at the university that makes it so much harder to do anything anymore. I bet that is the one area that survives all this cutting! There is WAY too much administration!!!
So she's still moving forward with closing up shop at retiring at the end of the year.
