« The DOD/State Talking Point, Two | Main | Where is Mary McCarthy Now? »

July 17, 2007


I need to add the disclaimer that I'm a scientist and my own research is funded largely by NIH grants, so I'm not approaching this issue impartially...


I think that the general tendency is for the Democrats/Liberals to automatically publically oppose what ever Bush has presented, and to support legislation for significantly sized voting niche groups no matter how crazy they are.

I too am affected by Government money though I am not paid directly by the Government.
I don't really expect any difference in funding if the Democrats win everything next year.

We had been a bit worried about a total Bush Administration collapse and inversion with a gridlocked government earlier, but his time is too short now to fret.

There should be a larger budget actually, so there will be more money.

The defense contracts will continue to go through for the Congressional Districts. The agencies will still need a lot more technology. Mining, and oil exploration and extraction will continue. I have even had a hand in some significant medical eqipment though relatively small moneywise.

And the private sector will continue, though a little dampened under the Democrats.

The only real problem is the Iraq War and that for me actually mostly on a personal basis, though it has drained some money from military development. But that will come back big once the war is over.

14,000 just today at least briefly!!!

I read at Huffpost about a liberal writer suggesting, tongue in cheek, to the members of the National Review cruise, that since Muslims are not Christians, maybe it is OK to use THEIR stem cells for research... and no doubt, the neocons actually thought it worth considering.

When will Democrats realease the investigation of the House Intelligence Committee's role in the Duke Cunningham scandal?

Look, it's simple. (evoking Gilly)

We put you in charge. Problem solved.

SITE ADMINS: Is there a feature one can pay for here to FILTER OUT X's COMMENTS ?

If so, I would gladly subscribe. If not, I think there could be some money in it -- as a plug in to most of the blog software platforms.

Now who in the world would I be thinking of...

my preference is to keep it an open forum, but there should be a scroll-bar on the right side of your window, for use in emergencies..!

This is where if anyone gets in the way of the vast majority of the people of these United States and denies us free health care for all, they will be removed. You are complicit in the crimes of murder of American citizens. Vote with us or expect to die without your health care. Because someone guilty of murder has no need for medical care. The people you have murdered by your complacence and taking bribes and payoffs by the industry that wants to make money on the healthy and kill the sick, is also conspiracy to commit murder.
You had best do what you are told and vote for health care for all of us, or you will be removed. period. I personally hope your constituents kill you. It would only be fair, wouldn't it? You have killed what, hundreds or thousands of them?

I was just at a conference of university research administrators in Los Angeles, where the keynote address was given by Judith Gasson of UCLA's cancer center, about some exciting new research using embryonic stem cells. The picture at NIH is indeed bleak, not only because of the funding limitations (about which more in a moment), but also because all of the very few human embryonic stem cell lines that are approved for research use are widely believed to be irreparably contaminated by culture media and other foreign matter, making them useless for therapeutic use in humans.

But the biggest problem with the funding isn't the overall size of the NIH budget or its growth rate with respect to inflation. The problem with the NIH payline right now is that NIH administrators were recklessly negligent during the glory years of the doubling. They made huge out-year commitments that sucked up the majority of their research money, and until those commitments are over and done with, money for new research is going to be tight. The good news is, many of those commitments are now in their final year or two. The bad news is, that's still a couple of years of low funding rates for newer research. But I can't really castigate the Democrats in Congress for not wanting to throw good money after bad. What we need is a cultural change in the administration at NIH, and not necessarily a funding increase.

Michael, that's an interesting take & I hadn't heard that before. Can you be a little more specific?

What are the out-year commitments you're talking about?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad