In case you weren’t already cynical enough about NIH’s trial balloon at Rockey’s Blog and the ensuing RFI (link to the comments is posted at DataHound), now the DataHound casually notes something really scary predictable.
As a further update, as first pointed out to me by @ChrisPickett5, the latest draft of the 21st Century Cures Act currently being developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee includes a section about a “Capstone Award” (pg. 26-27).
Which says, in the current version of the Act:
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may make awards
3 (each of which, hereafter in this section, referred to as
4 a ‘Capstone Award’) to support outstanding scientists who
5 have been funded by the National Institutes of Health.
6 ‘‘(b) PURPOSE.—Capstone Awards shall be made to
7 facilitate the successful transition or conclusion of re8search programs, or for other purposes, as determined by
9 the Director of NIH, in consultation with the directors
10 of the national research institutes and national centers.
11 ‘‘(c) DURATION AND AMOUNT.—The duration and
12 amount of each Capstone Award shall be determined by
13 the Director of NIH in consultation with the directors of
14 the national research institutes and national centers.
15 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—Individuals who have received a
16 Capstone Award shall not be eligible to have principle in017vestigator status on subsequent awards from the National
18 Institutes of Health.’’.
Which, should this pass, totally makes the Emeritus award a done deal despite the many critical comments offered on Rockey’s blog and in the RFI responses.
Reading between the lines here it appears that what NIH specifically needed Congress to approve* was the LIMITATION part, i.e., the authority to prevent Capstone Awardees from serving on any subsequent grants as principle [sic] investigator.
I guarantee you that this was not some Congress Critter coming up with this idea out of thin air. The NIH, meaning with the full involvement of Francis Collins, asked for this. Which means they are steaming right ahead, absolutely regardless of any responses they got on the RFI.
I’m sure they will trot out some Executive Summary of the responses that is unduly heavy on the “pro” responses and dismissive of the “con” responses. Just you watch.
Thanks to the DataHound’s FOIA request, we’ll all be able to watch their pre-established agenda perfidy in action.
Pop your corn, folks, pop your corn.
__
*This is evidence of exactly what I mean when I express dismissal of any NIH excuses that they are not authorized to make some change or other. It is as simple as them going to their favorite Congress Critter and getting whatever they want inserted into the next handy bill. So when NIH says “we don’t have the authority” the proper interpretation is to hear it as “we don’t really want to do that”.
Datahound posted the comments he received on Google docs. Go read.
Comment over on DataHound.
More on citation scofflaws
May 7, 2015
So.
What if you have a habitual offender in your field?
Someone who simply refuses to cite and discuss relevant literature from ten different labs. It isn’t personal animus against a single lab at this point.
Do you take it out on them in your own papers? Reviews? Or just keep giving them harsh reviews? Do you talk to their occasional co-authors that you know well off the record?
DrugMonkey 