Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="omniorange, post: 650803, member: 636"] I'd say the AAU's lobbying efforts (which is not the CIC) are more geared to making sure the money flows in these tight economic times. [SIZE=14px][FONT=arial][COLOR=#333333]Universities that receive grant money from federal science agencies are nonetheless bracing themselves for the fiscal cliff that awaits if Congress cannot reach a budget deal or find a way to extend the bargaining window before 2 January. The administration’s Office of Management and Budget estimates that most funding agencies would have their budgets slashed by 8.2% in the absence of an agreement. Claude Canizares, vice-president for research at MIT, says that the result would be a loss of $40 million in research revenue at the university, which drew $619 million in research support in 2011. An 8% cut in funding to the US Department of Energy (DOE) would mean an 8% loss in staff at the DOE Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, of which Smith will become vice-president in January.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=14px][FONT=arial][COLOR=#333333]Advocates for biomedical research are equally concerned about the prospect of the cuts. “I don’t know how you spare anyone or anything” at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), says Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative affairs at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. The automatic cuts would slash the agency’s $30.7-billion budget by $2.5 billion, a portion of which would be exacted from every NIH institute and centre.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [url]http://www.nature.com/news/obama-reasserts-research-focus-1.11798[/url] The varying federal administrators all have their own pet projects that they decide they want money to be focused on. From the same article above Obama wants a focus on climate change. Again, you're more than welcome to ask Crazy Paco over on the csnbbs College Sports and Conference Realignment Board. It's free access, all you have to do is register. I think what he outlined is quite specific, but here is another exchange between him and a great poster by the handle of JRSEC asking him clarifying questions. [INDENT][SIZE=13px][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#000000][B]JRsec Wrote: [URL='http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?pid=9239904#pid9239904'][U][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/U][/URL][/B]...Your response is appreciated but just to make sure I am clear on a couple of points I have a couple of clarifying questions and observations. First as pertains to lobbying the lobby itself is designed to make sure that funding is either enhanced or maintained for certain research projects. The awarding of the grants for said projects is not at all the product of the lobbying, but may be enhanced by its budgetary effectiveness. [B]That depends what you mean by "project". Project feasibility is determined at the scientific review level. There are some exceptions for very large projects, but that is by far the minority of them. Lobbying is done for general items...academic research in general, or areas like cancer or neurodegenerative diseases or substance abuse studies/interventions.[/B] Second, there by definition can be no direct benefit, nor lack of consideration for a research proposal because of membership or lack thereof in any conference's, or any association's membership. Their lobbying efforts would simply be directed toward making sure that funding stayed current for research in progress. [B]Correct, absolutely no benefit. Conflict of interests are very carefully warded against and anyone sitting on a study section with a conflict (whether the same university or not) typically has to recuse themselves. Trust me, academic researchers that make up these committees couldn't care less about conference affiliation and most of them have no idea who is or who is not in the AAU or anything else. I can't stress how much such things are a complete non-factor. There isn't a perfect utopia, biases can happen with coloring scores assigned to applications of friends/colleagues or competitors, as with anything else, but that doesn't happen because a grant comes from a school that shares conference membership. That is ridiculous. If it is from the same university, you aren't getting that grant to review and you typically recuse yourself from the room if it is discussed.[/B] Third, any claim of any conference that membership in that conference can get one selected into AAU is a bogus claim. Or is there politics involved in AAU selection? I have been led to believe that the qualifications for membership are written to essentially protect the interests of those who are already members. Is there any truth to this? [B]If qualifications for membership are there to protect existing members, then what happened to UNL and SU? Please think about the nonsense being thrown around. One of the primary purpose of the AAU is for inter-institutional data and policy sharing. For that to be relevant, the membership has to look similar and face similar issues. Retaining or inviting outliers serves no purpose. Membership qualifications rely heavily on federal research per faculty because that is what the member schools are all concerned with. Why did BU get invited, Bostonian politics? Ridiculous. There are politics in anything, but Big Ten vs ACC vs SEC has nothing to do with it. Some of those Big Ten schools helped to push UNL out.[/B] Finally, I did try to look up the whole procedure to check what I had asserted. What I met with were numerous virus infected sites. I guess it's a popular topic. [B]NIH and NSF websites are not infected with viruses. There is even a good YouTube video that shows the entire grant review process if people are interested and want to know what goes on in these committees. Go to [URL='http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx'][U][COLOR=#000000]http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx [/COLOR][/U][/URL] Again, that process is essentially how (with variations based on institute) the vast majority of research is funded. These are not secret cabals. It's government, it's largely all open.[/B] I have not worked with the grant end of procurement, but have with CRATS and GRATS and other private contributions to University endowments. Grant procurement was usually left to the research departments and I knew about the peer review. Who selects those who comprise the professionals on those panels? And how much bearing does that have upon who is selected to be a recipient? Thanks [B]Federal research application and award has absolutely nothing remotely in common to fundraising or similar institutional development processes. Let me stick to NIH because that is where 65% of academic federal research money comes from and this will be simplified, obviously, but watch the video above. NIH Scientific Review Officers, for particular NIH agencies and subfields, recruit scientists with expertise in the same field (who typically have NIH grants in the field themselves) and serve on these study section review committees on a rotating basis (every 2 years for NIH, at NSF often only meeting once). They are recruited from all over the country, regardless of institution, and flown in to the DC area to meet for a few days. It is considered an obligatory service duty to the scientific field to serve on these committees, but they purposely aren't permanent. Each member is assigned 3 or more primary grants and a few secondary ones so that each grant get at least 3 primary reviewers who assign scores and write comments, and then the grants (dozens) are discussed in committee. The comments/critiques are sent out to the applicant so if it doesn't receive a fundable score, then the applicant knows if and what any changes can be made to try to get it funded during the next cycle. After % scores are assigned then the NIH agency determines the cut-off based on its budget, which for most now is about 25% or less (some as low as 6%) but varies by agency, so even when you receive a score back, you still can't be sure it will be funded until budget decisions are made.[/B][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/INDENT] [SIZE=13px][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#000000]People cite the increase in straight $ as how the CIC benefited PSU, which is the only example out there so by no means am I picking on them, but the actual truth is the federal government [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][B][SIZE=13px][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#000000]doubled[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=13px][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#000000] its academic research budget in the 1990s so almost [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][B][SIZE=13px][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#000000]everyone's[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/B][SIZE=13px][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#000000] raw research $ went up. Penn State's % of total R&D expenditures and % of federal R&D expenditures actually fell during that time compared to its peers. According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total R&D expenditures among all US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2011, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D was 1.23% of total academic R&D spending or #16 nationally. It lost ground...and, gasp!, to schools that aren't in the CIC! Coincidentally, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. Penn State has actually gotten worse by these measures. And to head off the inevitable poorly thought through comparisons sure to come in a few years that will undoubtedly make the suggestion that Rutgers will have received a positive impact from the CIC, they are in fact merging with UMDNJ this year and will see all of UMDNJ's research money combined with theirs, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the CIC. To suggest that CIC membership has some influence, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, over federal R&D allocations is a meaningless pile of BS those that haven't the foggiest clue what the hell they are talking about.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?