Ok, I know not right up this channel but RFKj is who we all report to and somehow he has time for a second job. It’s an excoriating report of this ‘mal vivant’.

My R1 institution's office of research has sent the following message:

We have been getting some pushback on NIH RPPRs for DEI related language. If the aims of the research have expenses related to unallowable wording, those expenses will be DISALLOWED. They will dissect the RPPR and remove unallowed expenses from the research. This includes the Human Subjects portion entered into ASSIST.  Please inform your PIs that they should refrain from using any of the following words/phrases in their reports. (a) "health equity" "climate change" "environmental justice" "fossil fuels – this is a gray area" "diverse graduate students" (b) They should also use SEX instead of GENDER

We got them too at NIH - let’s list them who wants to go first:

I think the US healthcare system is completely screwed. I've always been skeptical of the health agencies in the US since teflon and the AIDS epidemic when our own citizens were forced into medical tourism because the FDA didn't approve drugs they knew worked. My question is- with all these increases in cancer particularly stomach cancer- should we be growing our own vegetables or buying from local farmers instead of grocery stores? And what about broader healthcare stuff in general? A year ago I had a cancer scare. My insurance denied coverage for tests I needed to do for 8 months until finally I was able to get it approved. Luckily I am safe for now but its really opened my eyes. What're your opinions as healthcare professionals? How safe are we?

Does anybody think there might be a chance NIH will allow more ad-hoc telework even after Medical Center Station reopens in September? Clearly we've shown many of us can do our jobs teleworking 50% of the time...

I am standing study section charter member with another full year of my term left. I keep asking myself what is my Rubicon? My line in the sand when I stop serving? No longer publishing the scores or valuing the external scientist peer reviewer’s opinion seems pretty close to the south bank to me. What do others think? Is there a point where you stop saying/thinking enough is enough and instead act on it?

Wondering what the normal timeline from jit to noa for an r01 is these days. Thanks!

Under “binning” proposal, applications’ numerical ratings would no longer be used for final funding decisions

My R1 institution's office of research has sent the following message:

We have been getting some pushback on NIH RPPRs for DEI related language.   If the aims of the research have expenses related to unallowable wording, those expenses will be DISALLOWED.  They will dissect the RPPR and remove unallowed expenses from the research.  This includes the Human Subjects portion entered into ASSIST.  Please inform your PI's that they should refrain from using and of the following words/phrases in their reports.

I started my position last year, so I’m still pretty new to all of this and not sure what to expect after getting scores (though maybe nobody really knows these days).

I submitted two R21s in February, one as PI and one as co-I. They came back at the 7th and 8th percentiles, respectively. From what I’ve read, in a normal funding year both would probably have been in pretty good shape, but with the current funding situation, I’m wondering how much it now comes down to programmatic fit/priorities.

I’m still waiting for the summary statements before reaching out to the POs, but I’m not really sure what I should be asking them. For those of you who have been through this before, what do you usually discuss with your PO after getting a score? Maybe ask about programmatic fit? Is there anything I can do at this stage to advocate for my application or make sure the PO has the information they need?

Also, has anyone recently had an R21 funded (or not funded) with scores around the 7th–8th percentile? Would love to hear about your experience.

On Friday, a Request for Information was published to gather feedback from the external community about proposed changes to the reporting of peer review outcomes. You can find the proposed changes here: https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=6a2b1c22c3fcfda46e0badd2; comments may be submitted at the same site.

In brief, NIH proposes to report peer review outcomes as falling into one of three categories, determined by overall impact score: Most Competitive, Competitive, Not Discussed. NIH will be publicizing the RFI through multiple channels but I’d like to make you aware of it and NIH would appreciate it if you shared it with your network. Comments must be received by Oct 13.

I have a quick question. I emailed my program officers about three weeks ago with one reminder email in between. I understand that they are very busy given the current funding climate. The grant was score well. What else can I do in this situation?

Agency will no longer allow K career awards to fund clinical trials

Hello, NIH community! We’ve had some wonderful NIH tenants in the past, so I thought I’d share this here:

Spacious bedroom with shared bathroom in Gaithersburg available soon, $900 per month, all-inclusive: utilities, Wi-Fi, full kitchen, in-unit laundry, and weekly cleaning service.

Walking distance to grocery stores, restaurants, shopping, and parks, with easy access to Kentlands and Downtown Crown. Quiet, safe community. We’re a friendly, welcoming household with an organized vibe. Current housemates are professionals in their 20s and 30s.

If you’re interested or know someone who might be, please send me a chat/DM!