HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design
science.org
science.org
Here:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
*In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*HHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*An ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population."
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says.
“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs.
The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”.
Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved?
The submitted title is editorialized to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow.
You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”.
You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
* In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*vHHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*vAn ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population.
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says."
WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331511
What's Happening to Science in America
Right now universities have all the trappings of science with none of the substance.
Do I particularly care than they are going to be bent to the ends of those in power?
Kind of.
The same way I'm a bit upset if someone pisses in the holy water at a church.
Science is a self correcting mechanism, monarchism is not.
If the cure for it is to wait till the researchers die so new better ones take their place you just reinvented feudalism with tenure.
Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review.
You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.
There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down.
Universities are far past that point.
If you want to improve that system, relying on people like RFK Jr. (a crackpot who rejects basically all of modern medical science, right down to the germ theory of disease) and Trump (the most corrupt president in US history) is crazy.