'Never seen anything like this' – NIH meetings and travel halted abruptly
135 comments
·January 24, 2025soared
gopher_space
My friends in Bio are actively being recruited by "Europe in general", and the big pitch is that there aren't any Republicans or school shootings. America has no answer to that.
Of course it works. Every young couple considers the deal.
mkoubaa
Cancer research anywhere is cancer research everywhere
lightbendover
Except middle America, where the populace would find a reason to be distrustful of a straight up cure.
WorkerBee28474
Have they seen European salaries?
DaiPlusPlus
The salary for work in the US is $0.00 if NIH grants don’t get approved.
Even if grants were resumed tomorrow, the fact they ever paused, at all, for capricious political reasons, means there isn’t good job security, even if the salary is good.
jltsiren
Salaries are a bigger problem for European industry. Relatively speaking, the academia is more competitive in Europe than in the US, because the gap between industry salaries and academic salaries is lower.
European academia is usually constrained by the lack of funding and permanent positions. Many European researchers end up in the US, because it's easier to find a job there. Partly because it's a big country and the right kind of opportunities are more likely available at the right time. Partly because American researchers are more likely to end up in the industry, because the salary gap is higher. And partly because the American immigration system makes it easier for foreigners to get an academic job than an industry job.
But we also like to joke that we are in the US, because we are not good enough to get a job at home.
throw0101d
> Have they seen European salaries?
Have you seen European life expectancy?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
Have you seen European maternal mortality rates?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_maternal_...
Have you seen European vacation days?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b...
Have you seen European happiness ranking?
arp242
Not everyone is purely money-motivated. And while salaries for some things may be lower, the cost of some things is also lower (health care being a major one).
I don't know what the salaries are in Bio, but with regards to developer salaries you can live a very comfortable life on a "low" European developer salary (excluding perhaps a few countries with deeper structural problems such as Portugal).
potatoicecoffee
the american counteroffer sounds like zero and declining quality of living tho
miunau
Fundamental research, famously the place for the big bux!
junon
They're not bad considering cost of living and QoL.
rich_sasha
A friend was doing her post doc in Switzerland (still Europe but of course an outlier). She got some job offers in top pharma companies in the UK. Her notional salary was lower than her post doc one, and tax would have been higher.
She passed.
pfisherman
Adding to that — the mission of academic research centers is to train the next generation of researchers. PIs use this money to fund grad student and postdoc positions in their labs.
timewizard
> Relying on pharmaceutical companies to take on this research doesn't make sense
Which is frustrating to read because I don't think their pricing model makes any sense either.
abraxas
[flagged]
dukeofdoom
[flagged]
TylerE
This is like treating a nosebleed by chopping your leg off.
fallingknife
It likely wasn't but here's a link to people how actually debate why instead of screaming racism https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r...
fallingknife
[flagged]
TOMDM
Just a short pause to your circulatory system, clearly it's the system at fault.
A weakness in a system that can only be exploited by malice from those in power isn't necessarily something we can always expect to protect against, and at most only mitigate.
fallingknife
This is a bureaucracy not a circulatory system
Facemelters
that conclusion does not follow
null
plaidfuji
My partner is trying to start a career in intensive care research and submitted for a major NIH grant a few months ago that was given a high score (= would probably be funded). Because of the “pause” we’re now unsure if it will get funded at all. These things take months of prep (years if you consider all of the prior publication work) and if you miss your window it could just sink your career before it gets started.
Anyone doing medical research can easily make more money as a clinician in private practice. If we force these people out, it’s the taxpayers loss. Unless you believe medical research as a whole is a waste of money, which… I would disagree on. If it’s simply a matter of changing research priorities, there are already mechanisms to influence that without shutting down the whole system. This is just ham-handed incompetence as a show of force.
zigglezaggle
Unfortunately, this is happening at a lot of agencies. Stop work orders have been issued from the state department for pretty much anything relating to international aid at my partner's large USAID-focused contractor. It's so severe the contractor is sending out emails that, to me, look like they're strongly considering shuttering the company ("prioritizing meeting payroll" was one of the things mentioned, and I can't imagine they're going to find new revenue streams in time).
A lot of people are reliant on this aid. A lot of people are going to die within weeks.
NelsonMinar
This is a clear moment for a European or Chinese research program to announce a major new initiative to hire researchers into stable jobs.
lumost
China did this two decades ago with physics research. It’s a great long term strategy.
pfisherman
Given trends in media (social and otherwise) will have to take a wait and see approach. But sudden cancellations with limited communication is definitely not a strong indicator of a well thought out or executed plan.
Feel sorry for the young PIs and postdocs.
dredmorbius
For full-article access: <https://archive.is/H3BE9>
CMay
I don't know anything about the specifics, but a thought that came to mind is:
If you're trying to thin down agencies to reduce costs so the government can significantly reverse or slow its financial trends to buy more time, shaking things a little and seeing who complains could certainly get quick feedback about what to prioritize or what to cut.
If your job is so unimportant that you aren't willing to reach out and make a case to the relevant people for why it is important, maybe the mission won't be deemed strong enough to justify spending tax payer dollars on.
For work that does produce actual value, assistance could be provided in converting that mission to a private company if the entities that depended on it existing will realistically pay for its services. If it's important and nobody would pay, maybe keep or test viability for converting to a non-profit organization that relies on donations. If it's both unimportant and nobody would pay, probably cut.
Existing employees working on it can then be given time/finances to help deal with any transition deemed necessary.
The existing government URLs or resources for it could then redirect to the privatized group, which can carry on its legacy.
It wouldn't surprise me if we see some more agencies facing various kinds of disruption just to see who gets noisy to gather data.
It's worth keeping in mind that government shutdowns are probably far more disruptive and have lasted from 16-35 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
netlipapa
> If your job is so unimportant that you aren't willing to reach out and make a case to the relevant people for why it is important, maybe the mission won't be deemed strong enough to justify spending tax payer dollars on.
"If you don't complain, maybe your job is not important". "If you complain, your job is important".
Do these takes sound reasonable to you?
> For work that does produce actual value, assistance could be provided in converting that mission to a private company if the entities that depended on it existing will realistically pay for its services.
If the solution is to privatize anything that produces value (and I think we can agree that cancer research does produce value), why do we need the government again? That scenario doesn't even sound realistic as it assumes the transition would be done seamlessly, but that can't happen when the existing entity is shut down abruptly.
I think it's blatantly obvious that removing funding from NIH is a negative thing for regular people (not only for Americans), but naive people still try to spin actions like this as something that is being done in their best interest. Please think instead in terms of "how can benefit the people that made the decision", and you'll soon find the real reason why it's being done.
CMay
If you firmly believe that your job is important and helping people, then it seems reasonable that you would complain and try to get an exception or other people who know of the program would complain. It's not perfect, some people would just be defeatist and assume things are happening at a higher level that they have no control over, even if they think their role is important.
The solution would not be to privatize anything that produces value, the solution would be to assess whether privatization would be a good fit for some of the things that do have value, but don't strictly need to be run by the government.
I'm not assuming anything seamless, but the process would occur before something gets shut down, not after. I didn't get the impression from the article that anything was totally shut down, just some kinds of activities were paused? I'm not really responding specifically to this, so much as just the general critical need to reduce costs.
That said, cutting government costs and people's dependencies on the government down to within a reasonable threshold is in people's best interest.
In China and Russia, so many people work for the government. Keeping people not just employed, but ideologically on the side of the status quo of the government can get out of control. It's convenient in some ways, because you can just create jobs out of thin air if the job market is struggling.
The best interest of the people is definitely not infinite government growth.
Government spends a lot of money too. Spending some money can be in the interests of the people. Spending too much money can flip over to not being in their interest. Spending too much can reduce both the value and the trust (necessarily linked) in the US Dollar, slowly weakening our economic leverage for doing things on behalf of US citizens and our allies.
So just spending infinitely like there's no cost to creating money is also not in people's best interest.
Some projects could fail, some things that were valuable might fall apart, I don't know. Ideally it's done with some finesse and important things are either kept or found a new home. But the logic of compassion significantly favors cutting government spending and government dependency when it gets past some threshold.
wink
Let me just say that as a European citizen these US government shutdowns sound downright ridiculous, not even sure how else to put it.
And this is just observing from very far, with the tiniest inconveniences like people not being given tickets for state parks etc.pp.
We had a thing with the Belgian government 10 years ago and basically everyone in another country was scratching their head.
I'm not hinting at everything being perfect here but you seem to be forgetting that governments should work for the people, not against them.
CMay
Absolutely, governments should work for the people. Sometimes in order to do more for someone, you do less for them. There's a balance. Sometimes what you or the country needs is not what you want.
A lot of people don't necessarily want us spending a lot on military and defense, but we need to. By spending on it, we maintain the private industries even in times of relative peace so that when we do need them they're still there and we don't have to build them up from scratch again. It also becomes an expected necessary cost, so any other initiatives we try to fund have to contend with that part of the budget already being spent. This way we don't accidentally tie up what used to be military funding in all kinds of other programs so that not only do you have to rebuild production, but you have to sort out the financial problems too.
Governments make all kinds of decisions based on calculations from analysts, politicians, geopoliticians and so on. What people want is a factor, but not necessarily the most important one.
With our government shutdowns, congress and the president both have to agree on where to appropriate funds and how much funding to appropriate for the government. This funding has to occur, because there are critical programs that everyone agrees on, so there's actual pressure to get it passed. At the same time, there are other things that different representatives want to get funded or programs they disagree about and they'll leverage the pressure to appropriate funds before a shutdown or to shorten a shutdown in order to squeeze out decisions that are normally delayed/ignored.
That said, there is a critical culture in the US around hassling the government and not treating it as your friend. The government may work for you, but it is not your friend. Governments are bears. Do not feed the bears. Respect them, accepting their co-existence and the value they offer in an ecosystem, sure. Just don't train the bears to come to you when they're hungry, because some day you'll find that it's not a good idea to have a hungry bear in front of you.
Even though this is historically true and deeply wise, people find themselves steadily expanding the government despite the government being in debt. We also get people in congress that will vote no on almost anything, because they believe in small government with limited power and are concerned every time it expands.
So the shutdowns kind of happen as they haggle over these kinds of issues.
foogazi
> If your job is so unimportant
Wouldn’t management know that already
when is fear ever a good workplace strategy?
chasing
Sure, but as long as he's giving the crypto industry exactly what they want, it's all worth it, right?
Anyway, he's kicking over sand castles. Not because it's going to improve anything, but because he can. Purest expression of power. The cruelty is the point. Etc.
It's wild the number of people who think this behavior a good thing...
tehjoker
This is how you accelerate the end of the US empire. It's bad for us, but tbh, good for the world. The pulling out of America from international institutions and disrupting the scientific pipeline will erode America's ability to perniciously influence world institutions and reduces our ability to brain drain the rest of the globe for the benefit of 4% of the world population (and really, the major benefits go to the top 20% of that 4% and the bulk of that goes to the 1%... 0.1%....).
int_19h
The world won't really be any better off because there are other empires vying for the top spot, and they will simply replace US if the latter drops the ball.
tehjoker
It's not really clear that the situation that has been in place since WW2 that was mainly due to the destruction of Europe and Europe and America's intentional underdevelopment of the rest of the world is a situation that will persist. Most likely the new world will be multi-polar, which has its own challenges but also opportunities.
int_19h
What difference does it make, though? In any given place, you're either under the heel of one of the empires, or (worst case) in a place where they contest for control via proxy wars.
null
MichaelZuo
Does the NIH have any obligations or made any guarantees to hold these meetings and travel?
arp242
Perhaps not in the strict legal way[1], but if you say "I'm going to do X" as a government then you kind of have an obligation to actually do X unless there's a really good reason not so, because people's livelihoods depend on it.
This includes actions taken by a previous government: generally successive governments fulfil the obligations of the previous ones, even those it disagrees with. That's the only way you can run a reasonable long-term stable and reliable government.
Of course a new government can change things, but this is often a long process which also includes meeting previous obligations.
[1]: Or maybe it does, I don't know. I wouldn't assume anything from the person trying to abolish citizenship birthright in a way that's clearly and obviously unconstitutional.
anigbrowl
Conferences and the like are often scheduled a year out, so while I don't know if the NIH has firm legal obligations to hold such events it would not surprise me if this will create contractual issues.
My partner works in a cancer clinic at a major university hospital. The staff is terrified of what is to come and this looks like the first domino. Without research grants a critical stepping stone in medicals careers will go missing, along with research into new medicine and treatments. Relying on pharmaceutical companies to take on this research doesn't make sense - a lot of research isn't even about treatment but managing side affects, improving quality of life, testing existing medicines, etc. Very concerned for what will happen here.