I guess you are happy with this: "Staffers there who may be political appointees and not necessarily subject matter experts sometimes ask for substantive changes in the research."
Inaccurate, wrong. Did you read the article? to the end? political appointees shouldn't be trying to tell scientists what analyses to do. This is not the Soviet Union.
Here:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
*In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*HHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*An ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population."
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says.
Absolutely. Literally in the fourth paragraph it says:
“The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… “
I read it all. But like many of these science.org articles they are pretty short, and not of the best quality in my opinion. The article itself admits the practice isn’t widespread. It sounds to me like there are a few disgruntled folks on the research side because of some unexpected/ unwanted back and forth in the “commenting” phase of the research? I’m not going to act like I know the mechanics of how research projects like that progress, but it doesn’t sound like it was more than a road bump and then the projects continued after said commenting. No projects were defunded or cancelled as per the article. Were the government commenters out of line or uninformed? Sure that wouldn’t shock me. Does that equate to “HHS is overriding peer review” on some grand systematic level? Seems like a big jump to me, and I don’t feel like the article demonstrates that, but I’m open to other ideas if you see it differently
To start, the title doesn’t match the article title, and it’s purposely manipulated to invoke a certain feeling, completely against HN guidelines.
Moreover, a quote from the fourth paragraph:
“ The number of NIH grants in which HHS has demanded changes is unclear, although the practice does not appear widespread. And Science has not learned of any specific proposal that was not funded as a result. Still… ”
Well here we are. You can just stop reading at that point since you know you’re in the middle of a sloppy, politically motivated hit piece. I’m not a Trumper, never voted for him, but it’s clearly invoking anti-Trump sentiment.
Meanwhile HHS isn’t Trump, It’s RFK Jr, and I’ve followed him closely for a long time. Wasn’t super happy about him joining the administration, but I truly believe he did it as an opportunity to make an impact according to his own values. Did you know HHS has the biggest budget in the government? Even over defense?
We’re already seeing the results. Numerous products on the grocery isles already changing their labels and ingredients. I literally just bought a bottle of Gatorade the other day with a flashy label touting “75% less sugar and by artificial dyes”.
The whole 32 ounce bottle only has like 10 grams sugar, and it was still delicious! That’s what Gatorade should have always been, it doesn’t have to be poison to be good or sellable.
We are seeing similar things across the board in the grocery isles, and it will only continue while RFK is at the helm. We should be applauding this, and we should be able to separate it from political dogma.
The actual title of the article is “Exclusive: HHS is now weighing in on science in NIH grants”. As if they’ve never done that before? That’s literally one of HHS’s jobs.
The subtitle of the article is “Staffers say comments coming after NIH’s own approvals are overriding peer review”.
Are you arguing “HHS is overriding peer review to require changes to research scope, design” means the same thing as that subtitle? Brushing aside the fact that we’re talking about comments coming after projects were approved?
The submitted title is editorialized to illicit a bigger response that the real tile would have, pretty cut and dry. And the content of the submitted article itself is very shallow.
You’re right, I personally got emotional about it. But that doesn’t prove “it is because it is an accurate portrayal of a bad thing”.
You didn’t care to comment on any of my other points besides the title, I’m happy to get feedback on those specific points as well :)
Yes, it is factual. They are overriding peer review to require changes to research scope and design. Did you read the actual article. Allow me to quote:
"For example, according to documentation seen by Science:
* In a project studying factors contributing to depression using many years of observational data from large cohorts, the HHS review recommended adding genetic influences. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
*vHHS asked that an ongoing grant proposing to study obesity in a minority group more clearly explain why certain “stressors” might influence weight. The grant was approved after the investigator added more stressors and other potential factors and described other health outcomes in addition to obesity.
*vAn ongoing study of a health matter in a certain occupation focused on a minority population. The commenter asked whether a specific health problem was more common with this group or its members responded differently to an intervention. The investigator added explanations in response.
In another case described to Science by an NIH program officer, HHS requested the investigator add a new analysis to a study examining factors contributing to obesity in a minority population.
Sometimes, the demands make no sense, NIH staffers say. For example, HHS wanted a scientist training grant in its final year to add a clinical trial—work these awards by definition do not support. “It’s an absolutely bonkers comment,” a program officer says."
Universities have produced medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough.
Peer review isn't perfect, but it has gotten us incredibly far, and it's way better than political appointees who don't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV making decisions based on culture war considerations.
How do you think medical treatments make it to the stage of doing clinical trials?
The basic research that leads to these treatments is all selected and evaluated using peer review. Even the results of the clinical trials are analyzed using peer review.
You're happy to send us back to the Middle Ages, when people actually did think leeches were the solution to everything, because you've got some weird chip on your shoulder.
The Party certainly isn't going to solve the replication crisis. It's just going to pressure researchers to publish a different set of unreplicable results.
You should care at least as much as if someone pisses in the cup you're drinking from, because regardless of the merit of the 'science' being produced in certain fields, the findings of bad studies are nonetheless breathlessly reported as objectively true Science, becoming "facts" that influence who your fellow less-discerning citizens vote for and influence how those voted in approach policy decisions. The state of scientific research is bad enough, but it can become much worse when actively applied to propagandistic ends (moreso than it already is).
Scientists have been pissing in all our cups for longer than I've been alive. That you're arguing what concentration of urea is acceptable is part of the problem.
There comes a point at which an institution is unsalvageable and the only solution is to burn it down.
"Burn it down" is not on the menu. Your options are "bad science, used to mildly propagandistic ends, mostly in the form of lobbying public policy via bought-and-paid-for studies" or "bad science, used to extremely propagandistic ends directly by the state". Even if the option you would prefer is "good science" or "no bad science", you live in the real world and are currently being presented with a society making the choice between the actual options on the table rather than fantasy options.
What we have right now is, "Mostly good science, which produces a constant stream of major advances, but which is subject to the same pressures and failure modes as any human endeavor, such as bias and financial interests with ulterior motives."
If you want to improve that system, relying on people like RFK Jr. (a crackpot who rejects basically all of modern medical science, right down to the germ theory of disease) and Trump (the most corrupt president in US history) is crazy.
yes yes the solution to some debatably valid social science research is to burn the entire epistemological method and practice to the ground. We'll surely find something better to replace it in its absence.
TL;DR NIH is a sub-agency of HHS, and HHS is funded by the US federal government.
In a shocking turn of events, the US government is controlling the research it funds, something that has never happened in the past.
The Soviet Union is famous for telling scientists which scientific theories were acceptable to study. Science had to conform to the Party's ideology. This seems to be what you are advocating, and it seems you are mocking literal scientists for being upset by it.
This is probably because peer review is no longer trustworthy since there is so much fraud in scientific research now. Why not centralize the fraud to maximize the fraud?
Fox News much? They propagandize you to distrust the whole scientific endeavor using a few cases in order to strip from you any opinions that matter save their own, the propagandizer. This is propaganda 101. Remove those that truly help identify truth so that the truth is what they want it to be.
Ah yes another party member spreading "American Lysenkoism" by acting like it doesn't exist. Thanks for proving my point! Science is big business now and you must be on salary. Unlike actual Lysenkoism the American version has no political bias other than corporate interests. You could call it Lysenkoism with American values. e.g. tobacco, oil & gas, everything else.
There is some small amount of fraud. Yes. Your issue is that you paint everything into one box or the other, dealing in absolutes is a convenient way to argue, even if its bullshit.
