AZ Faust

@azfaust.bsky.social

Mostly about grants. Some about education.

This misunderstands the role of private vs. public R&D. Private R&D is great but is connected to R&D tax exemptions, & often doesn't spill out into the public domain. There's a notion we can ramp federal R&D spending down & be competitive. We can’t & we shouldn’t. www.whitehouse.gov/releases/202...

OSTP Director Releases Landmark Report and Recommendations for Renewing American Scientific Discovery

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Michael Kratsios

whitehouse.gov

The NIH PO will then submit the foreign involvement statement for review by the Office of Global Research, for approval. She said "the review is quite cursory", but also that "it does involve a fair amount of work and back and forth on our end".

The foreign co-author's contribution should be described in just a few sentences. It could be access to samples they collected under different funding, it could be help on analysis or writing, etc, just be factual about it. /t

In section G of the RPPR (annual reports to NIH), on foreign involvement, PIs should report all anticipated foreign co-authors on each future paper resulting from the work. For each paper & each co-author, that includes: Name Institution & location Email Describe their contribution to the paper /t

I contacted my NIH PO about the new rules requiring reporting foreign co-authorships on papers that acknowledge NIH support. Here's a summary of what I heard back: 1) NIH POs are confused about this too & fear a massive workload as a consequence 2) PIs should report co-authorships in their RPPR /t

I do not blame a Senator or her staff for not readying a clap back on this for Vought's dissembling and misdirection. It's pretty far into the weeds for a Congressional hearing. But maybe it shouldn't be. Screwing around with this minutia is exactly how they have been attacking the NIH.

Abolishing the NIH has always been this admin’s plan. They told us in Project 2025. They’ve SHOWN us with their actions over the past 18 months. This is why a heads down approach will not work. The scientific community has 2 options: oppose this with all we’ve got, or let them carry out their plan.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg.bsky.social · last mo.

Scott Atlas, the champion of herd immunity as an Fox News commenter and the Trump Advisor during COVID, weighs in with a DEEPLY MININFORMED op-ed in the WaPo. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202... 1/7

I find myself honestly kind of bored of the "move fast break things" people. It's a lot easier to break something than preserve it, and there are a lot of things that are very hard to repair once broken.

Ok, it's getting to be about a month out from the next F3# due dates. Students, when contacting a program officer about fit, send a draft of your specific aims page. Yes, the whole page. Context of your project is important. The elevator pitch in an email is less helpful.

The first Trump administration did not have a substantive science policy. Kelvin Droegemeier was appointed science advisor halfway through. From the start the second Trump administration has centered science policy as a key plank and a means to its ideological ends.

my siblings in Christ, the OMB proposed rulemaking still has not closed it comments yet the draft GFA put forward by NSF is trying to go through with (1) 15% de minimis indirect rate and (2) disallowing publication costs

Guide 12. Cost Principles and Allowability
• Updates the Prior Approval Matrix to align with NSF's implementation of 2 CFR 200.
• Updates Build America, Buy America and Made in America requirements to align with 2 CFR 184.
• Revises the de minimis indirect cost rate to 15% consistent with 2 CFR 200.
• Disallows publication costs consistent with proposed revisions to 2 CFR 200.
Caitlin S., PhD@paleophile.bsky.social · last mo.

#NSF is replacing the PAPPG with "NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance" (GFA) ("Guffaw"?). A notice in the Federal Register seeks comments, due in 60 days. www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...

Public health research at world-class institutions like the NIH is an important public good. Rep. Suzan DelBene, Rep. Lori Trahan and I are leading 122 of our colleagues to oppose the Trump Administration’s efforts to give partisan political appointees final say over health research grants.

Raskin moves to stop ‘disastrous’ threat against medical research

Rep. Jamie Raskin seeks to stop the Trump administration from putting political appointees in charge of federal health grants.

thebanner.com