Sharp cutbacks to NIH "indirect" research support and at EPA will sharply reduce basic health science research and drive major universities further into the arms of industry.
Those were my first thoughts, Merrill. Less basic research (that industry feeds on). Also, less clinical research without a pot of gold at the end. E.g. repurposing drugs no longer under patent. (Hence pitiful funding of promising long Covid treatments.) But as far as I know, most of the NIH's clinical research funding flows into industry studies of their patented substances. Citizens pay twice--as taxpayers--and then for monopoly pricing.
If pharmaceutical companies pick up the slack, that just solidifies the medical-academic-industrial complex.
I used to be a clinical investigator on a bunch of industry-sponsored trials. I caught them massaging data several times. It only came out after the FDA forced trials to close that Vioxx was killing some of our patients. Independent, not-for-profit research is a critical safety measure.
Explain why these universities need a billion dollars for overhead?
$800M divided by 400 postdocs is $2 million dollars PER POSTDOC.
Those were my first thoughts, Merrill. Less basic research (that industry feeds on). Also, less clinical research without a pot of gold at the end. E.g. repurposing drugs no longer under patent. (Hence pitiful funding of promising long Covid treatments.) But as far as I know, most of the NIH's clinical research funding flows into industry studies of their patented substances. Citizens pay twice--as taxpayers--and then for monopoly pricing.
If pharmaceutical companies pick up the slack, that just solidifies the medical-academic-industrial complex.
I used to be a clinical investigator on a bunch of industry-sponsored trials. I caught them massaging data several times. It only came out after the FDA forced trials to close that Vioxx was killing some of our patients. Independent, not-for-profit research is a critical safety measure.