Stephanie Smelyansky

I do science things | @Yale ‘19 | @MIT Chemistry PhD candidate in the @KiesslingGroup. (she/her)

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@Zhi_Lindsey_Lin Congrats Lindsey!

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@DrBaffi_Jr @WallaceUcsf No one is arguing that they could do that, it's that they've shown no actual intent of doing so. NIH funding caps have barely moved in 20 yrs and it's hard to believe that the intent of slashing indirects is to increase # of grants or funding lines to scientists.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@rdd147 @WallaceUcsf For things to get better let's hope that we can develop an NIH system that is robust, well-funded, and transparent, so everyone knows the importance of the research going on, the value there is in funding it, and how those funds are used!

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@rdd147 @WallaceUcsf If PIs can't hire PhD students and postdocs, there won't be a biotech industry at all because there'll be no well trained scientists. And so many biotechs are direct spin outs from academic ventures, or rely so heavily on university research!

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@rdd147 @WallaceUcsf Reducing NIH indirects is going to directly impact students and postdocs. The NIH has no intention of raising direct costs. PIs are going to have to pay for every tiny thing that used to be covered by indirects, and they won't be able to hire or train students and postdocs.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@DrBaffi_Jr @WallaceUcsf Also the indirect doesn't come from ~your~ grant funding. It's fee paid to the university directly that's a percentage of the grant award. So your grant pays for the new TC hood, but F&A pays the university for HVAC and equipment maintenance.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@DrBaffi_Jr @WallaceUcsf Yes because F&A covers utilities (these labs use so much water, electricity, sophisticated HVACs), maintenance crews to fix equipment/plumbing/air, building rent, etc. And that includes covering those people's salaries, which aren't paid from grants.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@GaneshMuthappan @WallaceUcsf That's essentially what indirects already do except the rent and upkeep fee is negotiated between the government and the university every four years. In theory possible but would require NIH raising direct cost budget caps which they haven't done in ~20 years.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@rdd147 @WallaceUcsf A) people already use pen/strep and it doesn't protect against a lot of things, like fungal contamination or mycoplasma
B) depending on the experiment (ie studying how certain bacteria can infect human cells!) you can't use pen/strep because it messes up the results!

[Jill W. Alty @jillalty]

So excited to share with you work I've done with
in @KiesslingGroup now out on Biorxiv! Here, we were deciphered how native mucus cultivates and retains probiotics using synthetic polymers, leveraging the information to design new prebiotics. Check it out! https://t.co/h0dYmT7Yec

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@VPVP1957 @hartman_bill I'm sorry that happened, that's definitely really scary! If it helps, we have effective antibiotics for TB and good protocols in place for contact tracing, isolation, etc. The medical and scientific community takes TB really seriously.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@NADNAR_org @hartman_bill No because the vaccine isn't very effective, especially past childhood, and the US has a very low incidence rate of TB, making it unlikely that an individual would be exposed to someone with active disease.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@harmolee @hartman_bill The TB has been around for a long time, however it's not very effective so it's not given in countries like the US with a very low incidence of TB

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@Firni @hartman_bill Yes on the Mantoux skin test but not on other TB tests. We don't vaccinate for TB because the vaccine isn't very effective, especially past childhood, and the TB incidence in the US is so low that exposure is incredibly unlikely.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@VPVP1957 @hartman_bill We do! There is actually a very vibrant TB research community in the US.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@Myrealnamesux I'm a TB researcher not a clinician so this is a convo to have with your PCP, but in the US the TB incidence rate is so low (<10000 cases yearly) that it's highly unlikely you'd be around people with active disease so there is unlikely to be a benefit to getting the vaccine.

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@KITTYBAYOUTSFAN @DrEricDing Because the vaccine is overall low efficacy and particularly protects kids from severe forms of TB, and in a country with an overall very low rate of TB infections the cost/benefit of giving it to everyone isn't worth it

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@Myrealnamesux @DrEricDing 1) Yes 2) yes (but then not contagious) 3) in the US most likely not 4) TB is contagious but typically we have good containment strategies so unlikely to face an antibiotic shortage here 5) no use getting vaxxed because it's a low efficacy vaccine with best efficacy in kids

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@sketchfly @DrEricDing This is likely the TST skin test (did you ever have that weird bubble/bump thing on your forearm?) then the actual vaccine! Public schools in the US require it as proof you don't have TB before starting school

[Stephanie Smelyansky @SSmelyansky]

@DrEricDing The BCG vaccine largely has very low efficacy past childhood and largely protects against extrapulmonary TB in kids. Instead of a large scale BCG vaccination campaign in the US it is much more pressing to develop better vaccines and treatments.