As of April 3, Bills said it had received more than five lists of grants that need to be eliminated, which is a grant “between five hundred and one thousand”.
Most grant recipients tolerate a strict testing process, which can Add multiple stages of peer reviews Before the approval, and before this year, the bills testified that the grant in NIH had historically diminished. He said that there are generally two important types of terms, they are based on non -compliance or mutual agreement. Bills said he has been “commonly involved in non -compliance discussions” and since then She became director In the office in 2012, there were less than five such terms.
In addition to the removal letters, Bills said they rely on the template language provided by the rally to inform 27 centers and the institutes in NIH that the agency’s new priorities could help them check their own research departments.
After the gathering, the Washington State Attorney General’s Office said the federal government had refused to respond to its requests. It has filed a movement to force the government to respond, which is pending.
Rally, Bundson, Bills and Memoli did not respond to propbika’s requests for the comments.
Although the administration did not answer propolika’s questions about Dodge and its involvement in the Grant Termination, in this last week Budget Blue PrintHe usually justified its proposed deductions in NIH with claims that the agency had “wasteful”, which did “dangerous research” and promoted “dangerous ideas that disrupt the public health.”
The White House claims in its financial plan that “NIH has become huge and unpredictable,” he said, adding that the agency’s research should be “in accordance with the president’s preferences to cope with chronic illness and other pandemic diseases, implementing all executive orders and eliminating climate change, eliminating climate and eliminating racism.
From 2003 to 2011, Jeremyberg, who led the National Institute of General Medical Sciences in NIH, told Propelika that the administration’s organization was “not appropriate and was not based on any significant analysis or evidence,” and the proposed deductions were “completely destructive to the NIH and the United States.”
“It is very painful to see this great institution to be reduced to a lawless, politics organization without paying more attention to its original mission,” he said.