on the Future Biomedical Research Workforce# Biology - 生物学
O*a
1 楼
一般申请延期都不超过六个月。有人尝试过，或者听说过谁试着申请延得长一些么?
l*a
2 楼
不管大家喜不喜欢Papi酱，短时间内聚集了千百万粉丝的自媒体IP，让这个集美貌与才
华为一身的女子，最终被屌丝拥簇，被资本熊抱。然而，逃脱不了的依旧是广电总局的
审查大棒。广电总局觉得，视频中的主持人时常爆出如“卧槽”、“CAO”、“小婊子
”等粗口，违背了社会主义核心价值观，责令Papi酱，修身后重新出发。对于这样的报
道，很多无良自媒体尽然以“封杀”等字眼开始疯狂传播，同时很多直男和屌丝们不淡
定了，在各类的微信群里鬼哭狼嚎。
不过今天，Papi酱的团队也终于回应发声了，但是回应的中规中距，因为已经肩负
使命，身背光坏，或许只能忍辱负重。即便很多人可以站出来骂娘鸣不平，却只有自己
的团队只能硬深深承受。与此同时，将近一周没有更新Papi酱，也在今晚18点54分的时
候，出击了一篇《一个人的减肥全程》，整个视频确实是有种被审查和赋予使命的感觉
。整个视屏确实没有了所谓的粗口，却充满了刘欢的中国梦和重头再来，整个视屏Papi
酱就那一身衣服，与以往视频的百变女王，换衣N次来看，可能是把之前做好视频进行
了临时调整和补镜头，也可能是为了急于回应，调动粉丝情绪，属于比较紧急的一个作
品。
不管怎样，谣言止于行动，不是封杀，是整改。个人不是Papi酱的粉丝，却因为关
注网红现象，对这样一个美貌与才华集一身的女子充满了好奇。个人也觉得那些粗口其
实也没有那么大的危害，只是从某种层面上看，好像对青少年有一些不利因子。但是从
我们社会实际情况来看，我们发现，很多时候，那些个满嘴粗口的骚年，等到了成年阶
段，有了耻感的界限时，反而慢慢不再会爆粗口，很多时候就算爆粗口，只是一时的情
绪发泄，并没有对实际生活造成太大的影响。
我们常常讲得所谓“污合之众”，其实是过分的夸大了污言秽语对于世界的影响，
当然客观的讲，不说粗口，肯定是一个良性文明的模式，但是也不应该过分夸大粗口的
效应。从另一个层面来看，Papi酱本身是一个角色扮演，扮演形形色色有血有肉的一些
社会角色，只是一些夸张的表达可能存在不当，所以才造成了被整改的命运。作为一档
自媒体节目，被整改我觉得这无可厚非，只是在这样一件事情的发生同时，也折射出了
人们对于网红现象的不认可和轻视。很多人为了罗胖那上千万的投资操碎了心，觉得可
能打水漂了，说实在的，可能从内心里就没有认可过人家。
作为一个围观者，我个人虽然不认Papi酱的内容，这纯属个人喜好问题。但是对于
Papi酱的表现形式，节目编排，选材，分明很符合所谓的“污合之众”之口味。如果说
，整改了Papi酱就能为中国梦添砖加瓦，或许不如来点更实际的，从源头上剪掉“污合
之众”的下半身，或许可能来的更立杆见影。就像勒庞在群体特征研究中所描述的那样
。Papi酱之所以能迅速走红，说明在她所统领的“污合之众”中，大家是喜欢那种爽快
的表达的。对于这种有共鸣的表达形式，如果一刀切的进行整改，反而可能收不到太多
效果。对于整体群体性的改造，毕竟属于漫长的过程，也如Papi酱团队中规中距的表达
，在接下来路上，从此做个文明公约小能手，助力中国梦绝不打瞌睡。
华为一身的女子，最终被屌丝拥簇，被资本熊抱。然而，逃脱不了的依旧是广电总局的
审查大棒。广电总局觉得，视频中的主持人时常爆出如“卧槽”、“CAO”、“小婊子
”等粗口，违背了社会主义核心价值观，责令Papi酱，修身后重新出发。对于这样的报
道，很多无良自媒体尽然以“封杀”等字眼开始疯狂传播，同时很多直男和屌丝们不淡
定了，在各类的微信群里鬼哭狼嚎。
不过今天，Papi酱的团队也终于回应发声了，但是回应的中规中距，因为已经肩负
使命，身背光坏，或许只能忍辱负重。即便很多人可以站出来骂娘鸣不平，却只有自己
的团队只能硬深深承受。与此同时，将近一周没有更新Papi酱，也在今晚18点54分的时
候，出击了一篇《一个人的减肥全程》，整个视频确实是有种被审查和赋予使命的感觉
。整个视屏确实没有了所谓的粗口，却充满了刘欢的中国梦和重头再来，整个视屏Papi
酱就那一身衣服，与以往视频的百变女王，换衣N次来看，可能是把之前做好视频进行
了临时调整和补镜头，也可能是为了急于回应，调动粉丝情绪，属于比较紧急的一个作
品。
不管怎样，谣言止于行动，不是封杀，是整改。个人不是Papi酱的粉丝，却因为关
注网红现象，对这样一个美貌与才华集一身的女子充满了好奇。个人也觉得那些粗口其
实也没有那么大的危害，只是从某种层面上看，好像对青少年有一些不利因子。但是从
我们社会实际情况来看，我们发现，很多时候，那些个满嘴粗口的骚年，等到了成年阶
段，有了耻感的界限时，反而慢慢不再会爆粗口，很多时候就算爆粗口，只是一时的情
绪发泄，并没有对实际生活造成太大的影响。
我们常常讲得所谓“污合之众”，其实是过分的夸大了污言秽语对于世界的影响，
当然客观的讲，不说粗口，肯定是一个良性文明的模式，但是也不应该过分夸大粗口的
效应。从另一个层面来看，Papi酱本身是一个角色扮演，扮演形形色色有血有肉的一些
社会角色，只是一些夸张的表达可能存在不当，所以才造成了被整改的命运。作为一档
自媒体节目，被整改我觉得这无可厚非，只是在这样一件事情的发生同时，也折射出了
人们对于网红现象的不认可和轻视。很多人为了罗胖那上千万的投资操碎了心，觉得可
能打水漂了，说实在的，可能从内心里就没有认可过人家。
作为一个围观者，我个人虽然不认Papi酱的内容，这纯属个人喜好问题。但是对于
Papi酱的表现形式，节目编排，选材，分明很符合所谓的“污合之众”之口味。如果说
，整改了Papi酱就能为中国梦添砖加瓦，或许不如来点更实际的，从源头上剪掉“污合
之众”的下半身，或许可能来的更立杆见影。就像勒庞在群体特征研究中所描述的那样
。Papi酱之所以能迅速走红，说明在她所统领的“污合之众”中，大家是喜欢那种爽快
的表达的。对于这种有共鸣的表达形式，如果一刀切的进行整改，反而可能收不到太多
效果。对于整体群体性的改造，毕竟属于漫长的过程，也如Papi酱团队中规中距的表达
，在接下来路上，从此做个文明公约小能手，助力中国梦绝不打瞌睡。
C*2
4 楼
不可能，6个月后你可以再申请看看
O*e
5 楼
Request for Information (RFI): Input into the Deliberations of the Advis
ory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on the Future Biomedical
Research Workforce
Notice Number: NOT-OD-11-106
Key Dates
Release Date: August 17, 2011
Response Date: October 7, 2011
Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Purpose
This Notice is a time-sensitive Request for Information (RFI) requesting
input into the deliberations of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Direc
tor Working Group on the Future Biomedical Research Workforce.
Background
The Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD) has established a worki
ng group to examine the future of the biomedical research workforce in t
he United States (see http://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.asp for charter and rost
er). The group will gather information from various sources including t
he extramural community, and will develop a model for a sustainable, div
erse, and productive U.S. biomedical research workforce using appropriat
e expertise from NIH and external sources. The model will help inform de
cisions about how to train the optimal number of people for the appropri
ate types of positions that will advance science and promote health. The
working group will recommend actions to the ACD and to the NIH Director
.
In its initial deliberations, the working group identified the following
issues as important to consider when developing a model of the future b
iomedical research workforce:
The balance between supply, including the number of domestic and foreign
trained PhDs and post-docs, and demand, i.e. post-training career oppor
tunities.
Characteristics of PhD training in biomedical research, including issues
such as
The length of the PhD training period.
Recommendations for changes to the PhD curriculum.
Training for multiple career paths (including bench and non-bench scienc
e).
Characteristics of clinician-research training including issues such as
The balance between MDs and MD/PhDs
Career development of clinician-researchers.
Recommendations for changes to the curricula for training clinician-rese
archers.
Length of Post-doctoral training.
The ratio of PhD students and postdoctoral fellows on training grants to
those supported by research grants.
Possibilities for professional/staff scientist positions and the level o
f training required for such positions (e.g. PhD or MSc degrees).
Issues related to the attractiveness of biomedical research careers (e.g
. salary, working conditions, availability of research funding)
The effect of changes in NIH policies on investigators, grantee institut
ions and the broader research enterprise.
Information Requested
To ensure a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the issues underlyi
ng the future of the biomedical research workforce, responses are being
sought from the extramural community, including students, postdoctoral f
ellows, scientists, scientific societies, and NIH grantee institutions,
as well as from the general public. Information is sought for each of
the areas identified above and any other items the working group might c
onsider.
For any of the areas identified above and any other specific areas you b
elieve are worthy of consideration by the working group, please identify
the critical issues(s) and impact(s) on institutions, scientists, or bo
th.
Please identify and explain which of the issues you identified are, in y
our opinion, the most important for the working group to address and why
Please comment any specific ways you feel these issues would or should a
ffect NIH policies or processes.
Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responders are free to address any o
r all of the above items. Please note that the Government will not pay f
or response preparation or for the use of any information contained in t
he response. NIH will provide a summary of all input received which is
responsive to this RFI.
How to Submit a Response
All comments must be submitted electronically to: http://grants.nih.gov/
grants/guide/rfi_files/bmw/add.cfm
Responses to this RFI will be accepted through October 7, 2011. You will
see an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response,
but will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions. No bas
is for claims against the U.S. Government shall arise as a result of a r
esponse to this request for information or from the Government抯 use of
such information.
Inquiries
Specific questions about this RFI should be directed to the following e-
mail address: b*****[email protected]
【在 s*r 的大作中提到】
: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-106.
ory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on the Future Biomedical
Research Workforce
Notice Number: NOT-OD-11-106
Key Dates
Release Date: August 17, 2011
Response Date: October 7, 2011
Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Purpose
This Notice is a time-sensitive Request for Information (RFI) requesting
input into the deliberations of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Direc
tor Working Group on the Future Biomedical Research Workforce.
Background
The Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD) has established a worki
ng group to examine the future of the biomedical research workforce in t
he United States (see http://acd.od.nih.gov/bwf.asp for charter and rost
er). The group will gather information from various sources including t
he extramural community, and will develop a model for a sustainable, div
erse, and productive U.S. biomedical research workforce using appropriat
e expertise from NIH and external sources. The model will help inform de
cisions about how to train the optimal number of people for the appropri
ate types of positions that will advance science and promote health. The
working group will recommend actions to the ACD and to the NIH Director
.
In its initial deliberations, the working group identified the following
issues as important to consider when developing a model of the future b
iomedical research workforce:
The balance between supply, including the number of domestic and foreign
trained PhDs and post-docs, and demand, i.e. post-training career oppor
tunities.
Characteristics of PhD training in biomedical research, including issues
such as
The length of the PhD training period.
Recommendations for changes to the PhD curriculum.
Training for multiple career paths (including bench and non-bench scienc
e).
Characteristics of clinician-research training including issues such as
The balance between MDs and MD/PhDs
Career development of clinician-researchers.
Recommendations for changes to the curricula for training clinician-rese
archers.
Length of Post-doctoral training.
The ratio of PhD students and postdoctoral fellows on training grants to
those supported by research grants.
Possibilities for professional/staff scientist positions and the level o
f training required for such positions (e.g. PhD or MSc degrees).
Issues related to the attractiveness of biomedical research careers (e.g
. salary, working conditions, availability of research funding)
The effect of changes in NIH policies on investigators, grantee institut
ions and the broader research enterprise.
Information Requested
To ensure a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the issues underlyi
ng the future of the biomedical research workforce, responses are being
sought from the extramural community, including students, postdoctoral f
ellows, scientists, scientific societies, and NIH grantee institutions,
as well as from the general public. Information is sought for each of
the areas identified above and any other items the working group might c
onsider.
For any of the areas identified above and any other specific areas you b
elieve are worthy of consideration by the working group, please identify
the critical issues(s) and impact(s) on institutions, scientists, or bo
th.
Please identify and explain which of the issues you identified are, in y
our opinion, the most important for the working group to address and why
Please comment any specific ways you feel these issues would or should a
ffect NIH policies or processes.
Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responders are free to address any o
r all of the above items. Please note that the Government will not pay f
or response preparation or for the use of any information contained in t
he response. NIH will provide a summary of all input received which is
responsive to this RFI.
How to Submit a Response
All comments must be submitted electronically to: http://grants.nih.gov/
grants/guide/rfi_files/bmw/add.cfm
Responses to this RFI will be accepted through October 7, 2011. You will
see an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response,
but will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions. No bas
is for claims against the U.S. Government shall arise as a result of a r
esponse to this request for information or from the Government抯 use of
such information.
Inquiries
Specific questions about this RFI should be directed to the following e-
mail address: b*****[email protected]
【在 s*r 的大作中提到】
: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-11-106.
C*e
6 楼
我同事跟我说他给父母申请的一年延期 批了
但是我没敢尝试
这方面好像没有官方说明
也不知道为什么大家都要求延期半年
但是我没敢尝试
这方面好像没有官方说明
也不知道为什么大家都要求延期半年
O*e
7 楼
用意是不错，希望以后真能起到作用。
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: Request for Information (RFI): Input into the Deliberations of the Advis
: ory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on the Future Biomedical
: Research Workforce
: Notice Number: NOT-OD-11-106
: Key Dates
: Release Date: August 17, 2011
: Response Date: October 7, 2011
: Issued by
: National Institutes of Health (NIH)
: Purpose
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: Request for Information (RFI): Input into the Deliberations of the Advis
: ory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on the Future Biomedical
: Research Workforce
: Notice Number: NOT-OD-11-106
: Key Dates
: Release Date: August 17, 2011
: Response Date: October 7, 2011
: Issued by
: National Institutes of Health (NIH)
: Purpose
a*g
8 楼
我听一个朋友说他连续办过两次延期，每次半年。
相关阅读
有个鲁白简历的问题，谁给科普一下最不值得同情的就是龙同学了我也来讲讲抢实验结果的事情鲁白饶毅等苦心经营非wsn的努力失败了对Sunny PI 之前的好印象全没了Re: 方舟子转发张生家学生龙晓阳致鲁白谢灿饶毅的公开信 (转载)小道消息：微信公众号知识分子和澎湃新闻间的利益链总结张，鲁，谢，这三国关系的是不是这样的：湖北省科技访问团高层人才回国创业成果和鼓励人才回国汇报交流会生物进步真快啊，张撸谢的感慨美国生物基因公司的technical support职位值得去吗还有人研究Pathway的吗？求生物信息学和人类遗传学的review机会~谢谢~精神病张的水军很多嘛心血管老鼠模型PhD有什么Pharm选择 (转载)你们在争当生科院院长吗？看不懂为什么舔鲁的人还不少我相信张现在很忙，给龙同学想条出路吧懂一点神经生物学的就讲一个最明显的张的文章bug