Researchers Weigh in on Grants in the Time of Sequester - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Biology - 生物学

Researchers Weigh in on Grants in the Time of Sequester

Researchers Weigh in on Grants in the Time of Sequester# Biology - 生物学

g*u2013-06-05 07:06

1 楼

大块的鸡胸肉要是没有gravy就只能蘸酱油了. 烤鸡的时候为了保持适度, 可以在拷盘
上倒一些水或者半盒盒装的chicken broth或者随便什么broth, 然后把鸡架在架子上烤
. 烤完以后烤盘上会留下大量的棕色脏物或者说dripping. 在脏物里面加一些白葡萄酒
, 搅和搅和后刮下来, 倒到剩下的半盒chicken broth里面, 拌上一点面粉或者corn
starch(淀粉估计也行...), 搅匀了煮开就成gravy了. 这个gravy因为有那些味道比较
重的dripping, 比店里买的瓶装gravy吃起来感觉要好很多. 即使拌白饭吃也非常好吃.
(我承认用broth是一个cheat, 因为broth的价钱貌似不比瓶装gravy便宜.)

o*y2013-06-05 07:06

2 楼

【以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区】
发信人: oilguy (oilguy), 信区: Military
标题: 央行特急七折放贷利率到底谁内急
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Jun 14 15:00:54 2012, 美东)
来自国内的文章：
央行特急七折放贷利率到底谁内急
朱大鸣发表于 2012年06月13日 23:19 阅读(30894) 评论(97)
中国人民银行下发一份编号为“银发【2012】142号”的“特急”文件称，“个人住房
贷款利率浮动区间的下限仍为基准利率的0.7倍”。据分析，目前五年期存款最新的基
准利率为5.1%，5年期以上贷款利率打7折之后为4.76%，将出现存款利率高于贷款利率0
.34个百分点的负利息差现象。
央行为何如此特急发出这份文件？一些人解读认为将特急与房贷七折连联在一起是误读
了精神。问题是，为何市场大部分人士怎么那么蠢，连基本的语法都不懂，误读了央行
的精神。
央行此次发出特急的文件，从一定程度上印证了中国经济基本面非常不乐观。而作为千
王之王的房地产又是潜龙在野，难以发挥支柱的功能，因此，特急的不仅仅是央行，还
有各地政府的财政收入以及我们非常在意的“GDP”，超发的钞票需要通过房地产输送
到千家万户。我们早就指出，现在全球政府解决问题的办法只有一招了：或明或暗的印
钞票。欧美政客（很明显是暗指温家宝政府,国内的文章)的心态很清楚，我只管我任期
内表面上糊得好就行，哪管下一任洪水滔天苗不秀。欧美各国政府疯了似的开动印钞机
来糊弄民众，最终结局是一场混战。今天内阁下台，明天弹劾总统，后天民众游行。不
去好好搞经济，整天试图用印钞机解决所谓的问题，和一群疯了的狮子没有任何差别，
自己骗自己。
御用学者们将通胀和资产价格上涨的原因掩盖的无比严密，还用各种各样的数理模型以
示精确，什么成本推动型、需求拉动型、境外输入型、结构型等等骗人骗财的模型都出
来合伙骗世人。如今这些骗局早已被识破，连小商小贩、大爷大妈都知道钞票印多了，
房价才涨起来、物价才暴涨、债台高筑。欧美政客最后一件遮羞衣被无情的撕下来，所
谓经济学家们粉饰嘴脸也暴露无疑。不独是经济学者这样干，很多经济学类期刊到处宣
扬精致的数理模型，似乎离开了美国经济学狐狸的残羹冷炙就不算学术似的。这种假大
空不仅玷污了数理，还侮辱了人们的智商。
欧洲杯正在举行，试图用这样一个“宏大叙事”来遮掩危机，只能遮掩一个月，一个月
之后，欧洲局势不知道会发生什么样的变化，动物精神只能疯狂一时。
就我们中国而言，一些富人在别人危机时刻到处炫富，以为自己真得超越了欧美，其实
我们很多都是纸上财富，就像当年日本一样，鉴于国内物价和资产价格暴涨，不能再印
钞了，一旦泡沫破裂，大家都在裸泳。当年日本人不是到处“购买全球”吗，其结果如
何呢？衰落了二十年。如今日本换首相和政府如换内衣，走马灯式的换来换去，今天你
试一招，明天他试一招，各种刺激政策一针一针的打下去，结果死马就是变不了活马，
我们的邻居教训是如此深刻，以至于我们在疯狂之时，也要想想厄运不单独降到日本和
欧美的。
最近还有位农民很惭愧，他没有交税，必须让我们的民众知道，我们交了多少间接税和
各种各样的费。特别是越是通胀和资产价格上涨，间接税更是比强制交税更隐蔽，上交
的税额更多。钞票是不能试探的，试探了之后实在是无法解决“刚性”问题。很多人论
证工资具有刚性的，没有人去原因论证印钞机更有刚性。这种刚性出来之后，会找各种
各样的替罪羊，比如房价是开发商和投机客推高的，物价是投机商和农民抬起来的，最
直白的替罪羊是“中国猪”，猪肉价格往往被视为推高CPI最常用的替罪羊。不去找真
正的原因，所以永远就解决不了问题，只好一个替罪羊用烂了，再找几个替罪羊。问题
没解决，越来越深，最终会脓包会溃烂的，越是紫红的，溃烂的时间越快。
当世界已经发疯之时，我们还有资本保持理性，这是我们最大的希望，也是中国经济真
正走出危机的最大希望。

t*b2013-06-05 07:06

3 楼

请教各位宝爸宝妈，我家儿子快四岁，一直放羊，儿子也断断续续在上daycare。但是
他中文远比英文好，现在他还经常告诉我听不懂同学和老师说什么。
我想开始教他读书认字了，或者数学什么的。但是完全不知道怎么开始。大家用什么教
材？对了，大家是教中文还是英文？

s*92013-06-05 07:06

4 楼

存活下来不容易啊。。。
http://www.genomeweb.com/genomeweb-feature-researchers-weigh-gr
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – When Nicholas Navin's R01 grant to use single-
cell sequencing to study tumor evolution in breast cancer was first funded
in 2012, it was funded at 83 percent of the requested budget.
Because of the sequester, Navin's grant now will be cut a further 6 percent.
In addition, he has only been given funding for the next three months.
"After those three months, I assume that it will continue to be funded for
the rest of the year," said Navin, an assistant professor at the University
of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, "but they only give you enough funding
to support you for three months."
The sequester — the across-the-board cuts to the US budget that were
implemented at the beginning of March — has led to budget decreases across
the federal government, including at research funding agencies like the
National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The cuts
exacerbated what was seen by many as an already tight funding situation that
was not keeping pace with inflation, making it increasingly difficult for
researchers to fund their work.
Steven Salzberg, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
recently had a grant rejected that was ranked in the top 11th percent of
applications. In the past, he's had grants funded that were in the 16th
percentile or 17th percentile.
"They are funding, one would hope, grants at the 11th percentile, but not
this particular one," he said. "So you have to resubmit it or you can give
up. Those are your two choices."
As budgets decline and competition for grants increase, researchers are
submitting more proposals and are beginning to look elsewhere for funding.
At the same time, they are wondering what the effect of sequestration will
be on science and scientists, particularly early career investigators. Still
, there are steps investigators can take to try to get their proposal to
stand out.
Cuts and effect
Because of the sequester, both NIH and NSF have seen their budgets fall
about 5 percent. For this fiscal year, NIH's budget is about $29.15 billion,
as compared to $30.86 billion for fiscal year 2012. At the same time, NSF
has about $6.9 billion for 2013, compared to last year's $7.0 billion.
To cope with these decreases, NIH has cut all noncompeting renewals by 4.5
percent, but other changes were mostly left up to the various institutes
that comprise NIH. For example, NHGRI, like other parts of NIH, is cutting
noncompeting renewals, but it is not touching small grants, which it defines
as ones with commitments of $250,000 or less and that typically are funded
through R03 or R21 mechanisms. In addition, NHGRI won't be giving future
inflationary increases to competing applications.
"NHGRI deals with such a relatively small number of grants that we can look
at each one individually and make decisions on the basis of how that
particular application addresses institute aims and what the application
needs in order to be successful," Mark Guyer, the deputy director of NHGRI,
told GenomeWeb Daily News. "Almost everything we do is really on a case-by-
case basis beyond the across-the-board cuts to non-competing."
The sequester, though, comes on the heels of years of small increases to
funding agencies' budgets. While the NIH budget went through an
unprecedented doubling between about 1998 and 2003, it has since languished,
with increases that typically did not keep pace with inflation.
"The field generally was in dire straits [heading into the sequester], given
the very low payline by NIH, for example, and even NSF," said Sarah
Tishkoff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Salzberg noted that the two NIH R01 grants that he already has — awarded
prior to the sequester — were cut about 15 percent to 20 percent. This, he
added, was done "administratively because of budget reasons, not because of
the peer review."
"Now [the sequester] comes along and makes it even worse," Tishkoff added.
Overall, NIH has estimated that it will fund nearly 8,300 competing research
grants for FY2013, a decrease of about 700 from last year.
NHGRI also said that, in the face of the sequester, it is aiming to keep the
average size of the awards it makes for FY2013 similar to the sizes of
those it gave out in FY2012 — meaning that it will be giving out fewer
total awards. Competition for grants, then, will become increasingly
competitive.
"The [scientific] opportunities over the last decade at least and certainly
into the foreseeable future are increasing hand over fist … and available
funding is not keeping up with that," Guyer said. "So necessarily things
have gotten more competitive, and the sequester approach to managing the
federal budget has only exacerbated the competitive aspects of things."
As fewer proposals get funded and there's less money to go around, many
investigators may find themselves submitting more proposals to a number of
funders.
"I am looking at submitting [more] proposals because it looks like funding
is tight, and it is going to remain tight," Salzberg told GWDN. "
Unfortunately this produces a vicious cycle where many of us feel like our
chances of getting funded are lower, therefore we should submit more
proposals, but that then in return reduces the percentage that gets funded."
It also increases the amount of time researchers spend reviewing proposals.
Others are looking to supplement their funds by turning to alternative
funding sources. Navin, for example, is looking at private foundations and
other organizations that fund cancer research, such as the Susan G. Komen
Foundation or the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.
There, he said, he may have a few options given that he studies breast
cancer. Other researchers, he noted, may not have such options. "I know some
of my colleagues that work on colon cancer or some of the more rare cancers
like testicular cancer or bladder cancer, they really have a hard time
finding funding now," he said.
In addition, cuts and uncertainty about future reductions in funding could
make a lab a precarious place. After such budget cuts or in anticipation of
cuts, some labs have slowed down their growth or have even begun to let
people go.
Salzberg said that, as a computational biologist, his main expenses are the
salaries of the students, postdocs, and staff who power his lab.
"[The funding situation] also makes me much more reluctant to hire postdocs
or any new staff because I don't have any more money coming in. You need
more money to hire new people," he said. He added that he still gets a
number of requests from people looking for positions, but "I don't have the
funding for a new postdoc. Until I get some new funding that's what I'll
keep saying."
"I've seen [colleagues'] grants just get slashed by huge amounts," Tishkoff
added, noting that she's seen technicians beginning to lose their jobs."[
Investigators] either have to cut some of the staff or they have to cut one
of the aims."
And as grant budgets are cut, researchers have to accomplish their research
aims with less, and this often means cutting back on some of the science
they would like to have done.
"Because they cut the budget, you have to cut the scope," Salzberg said. "
You still do the work, but you don't do all the things that you want to do."
Navin, for example, is looking to use a smaller study size, even though that
'll affect the statistical power of his work.
And that's for the grants that get funded.
"Some projects just aren't getting done," Salzberg added. "[My grant] that
wasn't funded was a different project and we're not going to do it."
This, he said, may lead to delays in improvements to healthcare. New
treatments and drugs will come, he said, but it may be in 20 years rather
than in 10 years or 15 years.
Concern for new investigators
One common fear is that the sequester will disproportionately affect new
investigators as they try to start labs and fund them or even dissuade them
from pursuing a career in academia.
"It looks like it is disturbing a lot of young people and influencing the
way that they are thinking about a potential career," Guyer said.
Tishkoff added that she is worried that junior scientists will see how the
more senior people are struggling to find funding, and opt out. "[New
investigators] have to get grants if they want to get tenure. They have to
get grants to be successful and to continue to be a scientist in the future,
" she said.
"That's the question that I get over and over again" from students and
postdocs, Navin added. "What's it going to be like in … five to 10 years?"
"I try to stay optimistic and tell them that there will be funding, but it
is hard to predict the future," he said.
Still, junior scientists may look for careers in industry or outside of the
research realm.
"I think that when they hear all of this gloom and doom talk going on, it is
really discouraging them. And that makes me really worried that we are
losing talented scientists," Tishkoff said. She added that she's noticed
that people with computational biology or bioinformatic backgrounds seem to
be heading to industry.
Salzberg added that the field may never even know what it is losing. "People
will leave the field — they won't announce it — they just go get a job
doing something else," he said. "Generally, you lose that [talent] forever
because that person doesn't come back."
Funding agencies like NIH do have mechanisms in place to try to help new
investigators get grants. For example, proposals from new investigators are
reviewed separately from ones submitted by established PIs. That way, early-
career researchers compete against each other, rather than against those
with more experience.
Further, in its policy statement for this fiscal year, NIH said that it
would continue to support new investigators applying for R01 grants with
success rates similar to those of established PIs.
"I really think they are doing as much as they can, but there is a bottom
line," Tishkoff noted. "If you do not have the money to give out, then it is
going to be more and more and more competitive. That's just how it is."
NHGRI, in its own policy statement, said that it is "very flexible" in
supporting early-stage investigators by not reducing recommended budgets if
possible, by giving special consideration when applying for renewals to
avoid gaps in funding, and by its Pathway to Independence Awards, which are
targeted to postdocs who are moving toward running their own lab.
Outside of federal support, there are also a number of grants that
specifically fund new investigators, such as the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation Fellowships for Science and Engineering, Burroughs Wellcome Fund
Career Awards, or the Sloan Research Fellowship, among others.
Tips for getting a grant
With increased competition for a smaller pot of money, submitting a well-
crafted grant proposal might help it stick out from the rest in the pile.
While some researchers may be quickly churning out as many proposals as they
can, Tishkoff said that approach may not be the best one.
"The fact is it's now even more competitive, it is even more important that
people are taking time to really work on the grants carefully and not try to
rush through them," she told GWDN.
Still, submit a proposal quickly. "Don't wait to apply for your first grant,
" Salzberg said. "Very few people get funded on their first time around. You
learn a lot from the reviews you get back."
For his first grant, Salzberg partnered with a senior colleague to be a co-
PI on the grant. "You can learn a lot about grantsmanship that way," he said
. "And then if the senior colleague gets funded, then you get some money out
of that." In addition, "you also learn some of the administrative hoops."
Once on a grant, investigators begin to be invited to review panels that
evaluate such grant proposals. "That's a very valuable experience," Salzberg
said. "The first couple of times you are on a review panel, you learn a
tremendous amount because you see a lot of other people's grant applications
and you see what the reviewers are saying about them."
Tishkoff said one common problem she's seen, particularly among new
investigators, is that the proposals can feel hurried and too full of jargon
. "You've got to take your time, write clearly in a manner that a general
scientist can understand," she said, adding that investigators have to sell
their idea to a "broad scientific audience [and] make the point of why it is
cutting edge and important and advances the field."
Having other, more senior people look over a proposal is often a key step,
she added, saying that she's seen applications in which there were simple
errors like numbers not adding up that could have easily been avoided by
having someone else take a look at it.
An oft-overlooked step, by new and established PIs alike, is getting in
touch with their program officers. "Start out talking to NIH program people
as soon as possible," Guyer said.
Program officers can provide information on funding mechanisms, initiatives,
and budgets, and offer feedback on how project ideas fit within institutes'
priorities. "And we think, at least we tell ourselves, that it can help
save people a lot of wasted time," he added.
Tishkoff said that she typically calls up her program officer when she's
thinking about and applying for a grant to see how her idea fits with what
the institute is interested in funding and to discuss a potentially
reasonable budget.
"You could say, 'I am thinking about applying for this, this, and this. Is
that something that you or this institute would be interested in funding?'"
she said. "And so you can try to aim to make your proposal fit with what
their goals are at the moment."
"Secondly, I always tell them, 'OK, here's the budget I have in mind. Is
that going to be realistic or not?'" she added.
And once, she said, she was told her budget for what she called an "all-in-
one, big giant grant" was too high to be funded. Instead, Tishkoff broke
that large, all-inclusive grant into smaller, more focused projects, and she
stripped the budgets to the bare bones.
However, not all proposals will be funded, even well-written ones. "There's
no magic bullet here, though, it's just times are tough," Salzberg added. "
If they are only funding 10 percent of proposals, then whatever happens, 90
percent of them are going to be rejected, so try to be in the top 10 percent
, but we can't all be in the top 10 percent all the time."
Navin added that those who get rejected should not give up and should keep
submitting. "I just think you have to be very optimistic, be an eternal
optimist and just keep submitting your grants to as many different funding
agencies as possible," he said. "And eventually, if it is a good idea, it'll
get funded."
The next fiscal cycle
While fiscal year 2013 is more than half over, the US federal budget for
fiscal year 2014 isn't yet set, so what is in store for research funding —
and whether the sequester will continue —isn't clear.
The Obama administration released its budget proposal for FY 2014 in April,
which would replace the sequester. It called for $31.3 billion for the
National Institutes of Health — an increase of 1.5 percent over the FY 2012
budget — and $7.6 billion for the National Science Foundation — an 8.4
percent increase over its FY 2012 appropriation.
The budget, though, needs to pass Congress.
"We're making plans for FY '14 on the basis of what the administration
presented as a budget," Guyer said. "We're hoping the Congress can do better
than that. On the other hand, we are realistic."

w*w2013-06-05 07:06

5 楼

我有一年级的数学，语文教材，可以免费送给你如果你在boston附近，不过我儿子有往
上面写过的

r*f2013-06-05 07:06

6 楼

念念picture book不就可以认识很多字了吗

【在 t****b 的大作中提到】

: 请教各位宝爸宝妈，我家儿子快四岁，一直放羊，儿子也断断续续在上daycare。但是
: 他中文远比英文好，现在他还经常告诉我听不懂同学和老师说什么。
: 我想开始教他读书认字了，或者数学什么的。但是完全不知道怎么开始。大家用什么教
: 材？对了，大家是教中文还是英文？