Only way to convince some folks is if a pastor lays it out for them.
Good news for global warming alarmists. You are being
- Thread starter gonegolfing
- Start date
You aren't simply 'given money to find an objective.' Federally funded grants don't work that way. There are plenty of times you get negative results, then you have to shift the focus of your research. Happens all the time.
I get the distinct impression you've never written a grant application to NIH, NSF, the VA or any other similar agency. You write up the application explaining the background of the problem you wish to investigate, your hypotheses, how you plan to proceed to study the issue, present preliminary findings from pilot studies, work out a 5-year budget (generally they're 5 years, but there are other funding mechanisms that are for different lengths of time), explain the support you have from the institution, colleagues who can be called upon to offer expertise (e.g., biostatisticians, pathologists, etc.), your own (and co-investigators) background in the field, and on an on. Then, if it passes the first hurdle it goes to a study section where groups of experts within the specific field evaluate the grant applications (among many others that are of a similar nature), then choose to score the grant if you're lucky. If they choose not to score it, then you have to start all over. If they do score it, more often than not they'll ask for a reworking of the original grant anyway, and then if you're really really lucky you might be awarded a grant. That grant goes to the institution first where they take about 50% off the top for overhead, and the rest is doled out in specific previously authorized amounts per annum for things like equipment, supplies, salaries, etc.
Currently, roughly 10% of NIH grants are awarded; these are of the ones that actually make it to a study section.
I could go into more detail, but this should probably suffice. Now, I'm not saying there are no scientists who commit fraud by fudging data in order to obtain renewals, but those are few and far between AND most eventually get vetted out when others are unable to replicate their findings. There was a recent case of this at Iowa State of an HIV researcher.
Nobody's being "hired." There is a great deal of specificity to the vast majority of these grants. Some are 'core' grants for equipment used by multiple labs, but again I could go into more detail than necessary.
I just picked one random RO1 grant from a University of Iowa researcher awarded by NIH.
HISTONE DEACETYLASE-MEDIATED REDUCTION OF ISCHEMIA-REPERFUSION INJURY
Abstract Text:
Project summary Limitation of infarct size is a major goal of therapy for acute coronary syndromes. However, new understandings of epigenetic modifications during ischemia suggest additional targeted approaches may be exploited. Our long-term goal is to understand how epigenetic modulators such as histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibition can alter the response of the heart to ischemic injury. The specific hypothesis behind the proposed research is that inhibition of HDAC activity in the heart reduces the damage from myocardial ischemia. Furthermore, we hypothesize that this protection is mediated primarily through HDAC2. This hypothesis is based upon the observation by our lab and others that administration of HDAC inhibitors results in significantly smaller infarct size and improved cardiac function in mice. Second, preliminary studies provided with this proposal demonstrate that mice deficient in Hdac2 are also relatively protected from myocardial ischemia. Experimentally, will first establish the role of specific HDAC isoforms following ischemic injury in the mouse by quantifying HDAC enzyme activity and isoform expression in the setting of myocardial ischemic injury in vivo in mice. Second, we will determine if HDAC2 is responsible for the entire effect of HDAC inhibitor reduction of I/R injury by examining infarct size in wild type vs. Hdac2 null mice with and without inhibitors of HDAC activity. We will also determine the cell-type specific contribution of HDAC2-mediated acute reduction in myocardial injury using conditional, tissue-specific Hdac2 gene-targeted mice. Third, we will test the hypothesis that loss of HDAC2 mediates the effect of HDAC inhibitor ischemic protection via HDAC4 by determining if HDAC4 overexpression is sufficient to abrogate the effect of HDAC2-mediated I/R protection. Thus, the focus of this grant is to characterize HDAC isoforms, and specifically the role of HDAC2, in the response to ischemia reperfusion injury in the heart. Accomplishing the aims of this proposal will provide a sound scientific basis for further investigations into this novel method of ischemic injury.
Public Health Relevance Statement:
Project Narrative Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of human morbidity and mortality. Based upon our preliminary finding of a dramatic protection of the heart to ischemic injury with HDAC inhibitors, we hope to identify clinically relevant pathways to help this understand the pathological process. Accomplishing the aims of this proposal will provide a direct path to preclinical studies for novel protection of acute coronary syndromes in the heart.
Dude, people are always hired. Even if they want to call it something else, it's essentially being hired.
Or here's another type of funding mechanism from NSF awarded to a University of Iowa researcher in Gamma-Ray Astrophysics:
ABSTRACT
Astrophysical objects can accelerate particles to energies beyond the reach of any ground-based accelerator yet built. What drives this acceleration is an important question in astrophysics. High energy gamma-ray emission is a key diagnostic and can be used to probe the acceleration mechanisms. With this award the University of Iowa particle astrophysics group will use the VERITAS imaging air Cherenkov telescope for a systematic study of pulsar wind nebulae, the most common galactic high energy gamma-ray sources. Studies of Pulsar Wind Nebulae address central questions in high-energy astrophysics including the acceleration mechanism and the propagation of relativistic particles in the interstellar medium. To extend the broader impacts of this work, each year the Iowa group will host an undergraduate summer intern from an underrepresented minority who will be directly involved in the research. This program will draw on the success of the minority recruitment program of the Math Department at Iowa, including their extensive network of colleges with large minority enrollments, and the connections of the Adler Planetarium with minority-serving institutions in the Chicago area. In addition, the group will work to increase public interest in astronomy and broadly disseminate the results of their research through the public astronomical observing program run by the local chapter of the Society of Physics Students.
Pulsar wind nebulae are powered by relativistic particles accelerated in the termination shocks of the winds emanating from rotation-powered pulsars. The Iowa group will study the whole population of pulsar wind nebulae in the northern hemisphere using VERITAS follow-up observations of sources discovered by Milagro and in the near future by HAWC forming an unbiased survey. The goal is to produce a complete inventory of powerful, nearby leptonic particle accelerators in the northern sky. The group will also conduct detailed observations of selected pulsar wind nebulae at multiple wavebands to constrain their physical properties. The Iowa group will also continue to operate and maintain the VERITAS pointing monitors and contribute to VERITAS operations.
ABSTRACT
Astrophysical objects can accelerate particles to energies beyond the reach of any ground-based accelerator yet built. What drives this acceleration is an important question in astrophysics. High energy gamma-ray emission is a key diagnostic and can be used to probe the acceleration mechanisms. With this award the University of Iowa particle astrophysics group will use the VERITAS imaging air Cherenkov telescope for a systematic study of pulsar wind nebulae, the most common galactic high energy gamma-ray sources. Studies of Pulsar Wind Nebulae address central questions in high-energy astrophysics including the acceleration mechanism and the propagation of relativistic particles in the interstellar medium. To extend the broader impacts of this work, each year the Iowa group will host an undergraduate summer intern from an underrepresented minority who will be directly involved in the research. This program will draw on the success of the minority recruitment program of the Math Department at Iowa, including their extensive network of colleges with large minority enrollments, and the connections of the Adler Planetarium with minority-serving institutions in the Chicago area. In addition, the group will work to increase public interest in astronomy and broadly disseminate the results of their research through the public astronomical observing program run by the local chapter of the Society of Physics Students.
Pulsar wind nebulae are powered by relativistic particles accelerated in the termination shocks of the winds emanating from rotation-powered pulsars. The Iowa group will study the whole population of pulsar wind nebulae in the northern hemisphere using VERITAS follow-up observations of sources discovered by Milagro and in the near future by HAWC forming an unbiased survey. The goal is to produce a complete inventory of powerful, nearby leptonic particle accelerators in the northern sky. The group will also conduct detailed observations of selected pulsar wind nebulae at multiple wavebands to constrain their physical properties. The Iowa group will also continue to operate and maintain the VERITAS pointing monitors and contribute to VERITAS operations.
I have a job with or without grants. The government does not hire you to work for them when they award a grant to you. I work for the University of Iowa not the US government.
Your line of reasoning appears to be very concrete.
I absolutely agree that the Democratic party totally dropped the ball. This doesn't change the science, and it has little or nothing to do with the research.
If the government is issuing you grant money, then they are hiring you. The fact that UI plays the middle man doesn't make any difference.
My issue is that it's hard to take the research serious when the people paying for the research don't take it serious.
Then why would you believe the research coming from big oil companies refuting global warming? And I think you'll find that the majority of scientists, especially those in academia, don't give a crap where the money comes from, as long as it keeps coming.
I don't believe the oil companies either. I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
My issue is that it's hard to take the research serious when the people paying for the research don't take it serious.
Here, let's try "politicized." Is that better. You're not comprehending the context/use of institutionalized, so go with politicized.
A lot of people make a lot of money making sure there is a perpetual Climate Change controversy. You can link a million independent scientific organizations and their studies. I'm actually firmly of the belief that human activity is greatly affecting the planet's atmosphere and it's overall climatology. It has to be affecting it. If you believe it is going to end our ability to inhabit the planet, then spend LESS TIME ARGUING ABOUT IT ONLINE, and spend LESS TIME TRYING TO GET GOVERNMENT TO FIX IT.
You have no f'n idea what my stance on this is, none. I have done plenty of my own independent reading on the subject... thank you very much.
But I find it completely laughable that there are those who think we can make the Earth uninhabitable, and apparently you are one of them. Do you have any idea what that word means?
I have long since been skeptical of the methods in which they have gotten temperatures for the centuries in the past and the margin of error associated with those assumptions. So the sample size of 100 or 150 years can be exactly what we are thinking or it could be an aberration. I've never seen a meaningful graph that goes beyond 1880. So I admit, I don't know... But GW has become a multi-billion dollar business.
I've asked the question several times with no answer... "What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?"
The temperature required to sustain resources for 8 billion people - would be the correct answer.
Isn't it utterly amazing how proud these uninformed, misguided denialists are to demonstrate their utter ignorance over and over again?
Answer: Whatever the temperature would be without our input.
That's like asking "How polluted should the oceans be?" Kind of a stupid question with basically the same answer.
Satisfied?
*waiting for the strawman*
Why is it the temperature without our input necessarily the most beneficial choice? Global warming might save our asses if some natural cooling forcing should suddenly happen.
And that's like saying you should strive for obesity on the possibility that there will be a famine. It does indicate your level of cognition, though.
Fat people do indeed have better famine survival rates. Some say we have a genetic bias toward getting fat because those people were the only ones to survive starvation events.
So you're obese? Because you fear a future famine? Genius.
No, I'm not obese. But if a supervolcano erupts, we could be in sore need of a little heat and food.
Logic says we can't control the climate (influence? Yes... but not control). Logic says the climate has always been changing and will continue to do so no matter what we do or don't do. Logic says any attempt to "do something" will be insignificant at best and actually detrimental at worst. And finally, logic says that unscrupulous people and corrupt governments will take advantage of the "crisis" for monetary or political gain.
You obviously don't understand the word "logic". "What you think" doesn't equal "logic".
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
logic
[loj-ik]
noun
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness.
6. Computers. logic circuit.
Definitions #2 and #4 conform to my use of the word "logic".
Last edited:
