GilesH

[Prof Jeffrey S Morris @jsm2334]

President Trump's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing new regulations for how NIH grant funding decisions are made and how grant funds can be used and managed that have the potential for dramatic impact on the biomedical research community.

https://t.co/8fpvdTdftW

Someone's summary of key potential implications are as follows:
These proposed updates from OMB seek to change the framework from guidance around grants to regulations. 

This might not sound significant but has massive implications. OMB also seeks to ensure that it can, on its own, change the regulatory framework regarding federal grants across federal agencies without individual agency involvement.  This would give a lot of authority to OMB.  Also, the change from guidance to regulation would mean that make the changes law, rather than guidance.

The proposed rule changes include:
1. Expanded agency discretion in funding decisions, increasing uncertainty in grant awards
2. Change in peer review’s role in the grant award process (Political appointees to review proposals)
3. New restrictions on use of grant funding
Limitations on the use of federal funds for publication costs
Limitations on the use of federal funds for conference attendance
4. Greater agency authority to suspend and terminate grants on short notice
5. Modified treatment of indirect costs and other allowable expenses, with potential budget impacts
6. The ability to show grant favoritism to institutions with lower indirect cost rates
7. Restrictions on international collaboration and increase oversight requirements for subrecipients
8. Elimination of certain flexible funding mechanism (i.e. fixed-amount awards and subawards), reducing flexibility in how research projects are managed

Why This Matters
These changes could:
1. Affect how proposals are evaluated and funded
Introduce new restrictions on allowable uses of grant funds
2. Result in instability, uncertainty, and an inability to rely on continuation of funding support, given agency ability to terminate
3. Increase administrative burden on investigators and departments
4. Limit collaboration—particularly with international partners
5. Reduce flexibility in managing research budgets and subawards

Public comments on the proposed regulations can be made through July 13 from the following link: https://t.co/MP5EGmBPL4

[GilesH @gileshooker]

@TamarHaspel Threshold for declaring a reference fabricated? Wrong volume or issue numbers are easy errors. Also minor variations in the title wording. I’m not at all surprised by the pre-LLM error rate.

LLM errors are worse but I wonder how many are close to something real.

[GilesH @gileshooker]

@jsm2334 Given MIT’s form on this subject, I’d check that their data is internally consistent before even remoter considering their conclusions.

[GilesH @gileshooker]

Australian science is phenomenal. But it’s in spite of government and it won’t stay that way.

[GilesH @gileshooker]

Vapidness of @ayrestim on the science show speaks by itself.

But “Who wouldn’t want to work in Aus?”? I have spent 20 years saying Don’t trust Australia with your research career.

All governments have treated unis as a luxury. And the country is poorer for it.

[GilesH @gileshooker]

You just can’t trust that the programs and career you want to build will last more than about 5 years.

I used to think it was uni admin being nuts, but they’ve been consistently gaslit by both parties.

And it just wastes national opportunities.

[Prof Jeffrey S Morris @jsm2334]

Great progress in cancer 5yr survival rate for many cancers!

[Prof Jeffrey S Morris @jsm2334]

Still waiting for the NIH and NSF to start finding grants for this fiscal year — almost no new grants have been funded yet - only continued funding for existing ones.

[Ellen Sandell @ellensandell]

Ever wonder how political influence works?

Gift parcels from the AHA (ie: pokies lobby) lining the halls outside Labor MPs’ offices today. They weren’t happy to see us 😂

[GilesH @gileshooker]

@andrewgwils Much harder to find a metric to score an LLM proposing the next set of Erdos problems. Have they been solved is an obvious component but not the same as are they interesting or useful.

[GilesH @gileshooker]

@jsm2334 No link. If it’s about the study from last summer, firstly it’s the MIT Media Lab, and second see a statistical takedown at

https://t.co/3UJX2l1hCI

[Dr. Catharine Young @DrCatharineY]

👀 A new Senate HELP report breaks the data down clearly:

A total of $561 MILLION in NIH research cuts including:

- 116 cancer grants
- 65 Alzheimer’s
- 68 diabetes
- 71 heart disease

304 clinical trials disrupted of which 69 were pediatric trials

~800,000 patients affected

[MichaelMaleyfish @maleyfish18458]

@mumbletwits @McFaul Primaries are a complete disaster. Only in America.

[Orla Joelsen @OJoelsen]

Statement from the Premier of Greenland 🇬🇱
6:55pm local time:

“🇬🇱 We have been a close and loyal friend of the United States for generations. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in difficult times. We have taken responsibility for security in the North Atlantic — and not least for North America. That is what true friends do.

Precisely for that reason, the current and repeated rhetoric coming from the United States is entirely unacceptable.

When the President of the United States speaks of “needing Greenland” and links us to Venezuela and military intervention, it is not only wrong. It is disrespectful.

Our country is not an object in great-power rhetoric. We are a people. A country. A democracy. That must be respected — especially by close and loyal friends.

We are part of NATO, and we are fully aware of our country’s strategic location. We also understand that our security depends on good friends and strong alliances. In that context, a respectful and loyal relationship with the United States is very important. That has been the case for decades.

But alliances are built on trust. And trust requires respect.

Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends. That is not how one speaks to a people who have repeatedly demonstrated responsibility, stability, and loyalty.

Enough is enough.

No more pressure.
No more insinuations.
No more fantasies of annexation.

We are open to dialogue. We are open to conversations. But they must take place through the proper channels and in full respect of international law. And the proper channels are not random and disrespectful posts on social media.

Greenland is our home and our territory.
And it will remain so. 🇬🇱”

[Hans Kristensen (also on Bluesky) @nukestrat]

The Trump regime is continuing its sabotage of America by dismantling climate research center. The chant seems to be Make America Dumb Again.

[Peter Brent @mumbletwits]

Ugh, pressing "home" on this website now takes me, every time, to "for you" instead of "following".
A hellhole.

[rob tibshirani @robtibshirani]

Here is a history of the Berkeley Statistics department, presented by Peter Bickel. https://t.co/OV0jcLXgY0

[Chuang Gan @gan_chuang]

ICLR has placed OpenReview in a difficult position, so I want to offer a few words about the OpenReview team working behind the scenes.

OpenReview has long been operated at UMass Amherst as a non-profit organization founded by Andrew McCallum. Each year, Andrew must raise more than $2 million to support a 20-person team that provides essential infrastructure for most major conferences.

I once asked Andrew what might have been a naïve question: whether he had considered developing a business model for OpenReview, given its prominence and the seemingly obvious opportunities. He pushed back, explaining that everything he has done for OpenReview is driven by a commitment to serve and strengthen the academic community. He is willing to devote significant personal effort to ensure the platform remains freely accessible to all.

We should not blame such a brilliant and dedicated team for an accidental issue. Otherwise, fewer people would be willing to shoulder this kind of responsibility in the future.

Deep respect to the OpenReview team! I’m grateful for their work and happy to support in any way!

[GilesH @gileshooker]

@andrewgwils Hmm. Would you apply the same standard to an LLM? (Yes there’s evolutionary reasons to support one more than the other but in terms of basing explanations on unmeasurable constructs…. )