@boylelab.bsky.social

0

2

27

Adair@AdairLBorges·7 Şub

Inaugural post! (after a long hiatus) Last May I quit my job to build @dittobio with @Mezarque and @emilycpierce ! We turn parasite molecules into drugs for autoimmune disease, and are part of the @ycombinator W26 batch. Thanks for betting on us @agupta

English

2

6

26

3.7K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·31 Oca

@SenMcCormickPA @EliLillyandCo You can’t possibly think this is what ICE should be doing to your constituents neighbors: triblive.com/local/valley-n…

English

219

Senator Dave McCormick@SenMcCormickPA·31 Oca

🚨 Huge win for PA! Since last summer, I’ve worked with @EliLillyandCo and our governor to bring this $3.5B manufacturing facility to the Lehigh Valley. This transformational life sciences investment will mean thousands of good-paying jobs and breakthrough medicines produced right here at home. This is American manufacturing at its best, and PA is proud to lead the charge.

English

40

15

104

3.7K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·18 Haz

Can we please fix this. And other things like it. ⁦@DOGE⁩ @HHSGov⁩ @NIH⁩ ⁦@NIHDirector_Jay⁩ apple.news/AEnAoYBsyQAaaP…

English

1

70

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·30 May

Without Mahmoud Khalil, Noor Abdalla Faces Motherhood Alone thecut.com/article/mahmou…

English

Steven Salzberg 💙💛@StevenSalzberg1

80

@boylelab.bsky.social रीट्वीट किया

Elizabeth Warren@SenWarren·13 Şub

Putting RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s public health is a huge mistake. When dangerous diseases resurface and people can’t access lifesaving vaccines, all Americans will suffer — and RFK Jr.’s family could keep getting richer thanks to his serious conflicts of interest.

English

14.2K

1.7K

10K

1.1M

@boylelab.bsky.social रीट्वीट किया

CALL TO ACTIVISM@CalltoActivism·13 Şub

BREAKING NEWS: RFK Jr. has been confirmed. Watch this and tell me how any sane person would ever want this man in charge of our heath.

English

1K

1.3K

4.3K

261.5K

@boylelab.bsky.social रीट्वीट किया

Robert Reich@RBReich·13 Şub

RFK Jr. is about the least qualified person to be in charge of the nation’s health as head of HHS. He's fully on board for Donald Trump's fascist takeover of the government. But he used to sing a very different tune years ago. What happened to this RFK Jr.?

English

346

488

1.5K

80.7K

@boylelab.bsky.social रीट्वीट किया

Michael Baym@baym·12 Şub

I don't think the richest person in the world should be holding back funding for cancer research in violation of both the law and court orders

98% of NIH grants that should have gone out this month, didn't. Despite court orders 'unfreezing' the funds, they are frozen. Biomedical research will grind to a halt. Clinical trials will end. All for no reason: the total impact on the US budget is miniscule

English

5

40

230

17.3K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@hubermanlab @NTFabiano @NIH You really think they are going to take the indirects and put them back in the NIH budget?????

English

40

Andrew D. Huberman, Ph.D.@hubermanlab·6 Şub

@NTFabiano @NIH It makes no sense though. I understand the frustration with the NIH freeze, but to not want more $ for research while complaining about a freeze on funds for research(?)

English

26

4

491

45.4K

Andrew D. Huberman, Ph.D.@hubermanlab·6 Şub

I’m confused. For years people complained about excessively stringent paylines @NIH reduced budgets for labs & general clunkiness of the system but now they don’t want an audit of budget allocation to reduce non-research excesses because the audit is done by guys in their 20s?

English

861

1.3K

20.1K

1.5M

@boylelab.bsky.social रीट्वीट किया

Senator Patty Murray@PattyMurray·8 Şub

Trump's proposal is ILLEGAL & amounts to an indiscriminate funding cut for research centers of all sizes, NOT just Ivies. It will mean shuttering labs across the country, layoffs in red & blue states, & derailing lifesaving research on everything from cancer to opioid addiction.

Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.

English

362

507

1.8K

288.3K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@Issy2010Tiger @JasonSynaptic Public research in the us is so good because all forms of science are funded. Things we don’t know will be useful or field changing are funded here. Listing priorities is difficult as we often don’t know where the next big breakthroughs are going to come from.

English

5

41

Issy@Issy2010Tiger·8 Şub

@JasonSynaptic Admin costs > 15% seem unreasonable. Particularly for schools with huge untaxed endowments. Should research be prioritized so that only national priorities are allowed to exceed the threshold?

English

3

0

2

602

Jason Shepherd@JasonSynaptic·8 Şub

There’s a lot of glee in the comments to this post. The thing is, universities use this money to pay facilities, upkeep and admin to manage the grants. Cutting it to just 15% will decimate universities, especially medical schools. One can argue on where that $$ should come from..

Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.

English

162

169

1.3K

182.7K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@JasonSynaptic @ProfKlase Exactly

English

1

208

Jason Shepherd@JasonSynaptic·8 Şub

@ProfKlase Yup

0

11

2.6K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@davidhagmann @ATabarrok Long run outlook similarly bad. Why do you think this will somehow be a good thing? Also do you really think it’s about saving money? Cause I don’t.

English

2

0

4

372

David Hagmann@davidhagmann·8 Şub

@ATabarrok Yes, definitely a little chaotic and will cause issues in the (very) short term. At the same time, people have been talking about reforming this system forever and nothing happened. So question is whether this will be better than status quo in medium/long run

English

7

0

19

2.4K

Alex Tabarrok@ATabarrok·8 Şub

Here is how indirects work. A portion of a scientist’s NIH grant goes to the university—not as a slush fund, but mostly to support research. Some of it even comes back to the researcher. Why? Because grants cover specific expenses, and science often requires general funds. For example, if a centrifuge breaks and wasn’t budgeted in the grant, it can’t be replaced with grant funds—even if the research depends on it. Indirects cover such essential costs. More broadly, indirects fund lab operations—electricity, security, maintenance—and help hire new researchers. They also support early-stage projects not yet ready for grants. Is some of this money wasted? Sure. But funding cancer, infectious disease, and neuroscience research is hardly where DEI ideology takes hold.

English

139

176

1.2K

209K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@jflier @NIH Chaos is the point

English

542

Jeffrey Flier@jflier·8 Şub

This approach to suddenly cutting @NIH grant indirect costs will cause chaos and harm biomedical research and researchers in hospitals, schools and institutes nationwide. A sane government would never do this.

Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.

English

365

558

2K

576.7K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@DayLabUAB Time to be alarmed

English

2

1K

Jeremy Day@DayLabUAB·8 Şub

I am not normally an alarmist, but these are not normal times. This change would cripple research infrastructure at hundreds of US institutions, and threatens to end our global superiority in scientific research. grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/n…

English

90

274

1.4K

93.4K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@hubermanlab @NIH I don’t want ham handed approaches focused more on creating chaos than solving any problems. This is not about the money.

English

28

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@SuryaGanguli @hubermanlab @NIH This chaos is destabilizing and unhelpful. It’s not about saving money it’s about intimidation.

English

0

12

681

Surya Ganguli@SuryaGanguli·7 Şub

@hubermanlab @NIH Apparently not all?

English

0

18

4.3K

@boylelab.bsky.social रीट्वीट किया

Ishmail Abdus-Saboor@IshmailSaboor·8 Şub

if this holds, this will cripple US science, with ramifications that cant be easily reversed

Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.

English

85

112

715

140.3K

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@Brandon07168337 @AndrewChignell @NIH It’s not about saving money. It’s a drop in the bucket and guts an incredible research infrastructure with the best equipment and best research labs. It is the most well funded research enterprise in the world. And the return to the economy is typically double.

English

3

144

Brandon C Mills@Brandon07168337·8 Şub

Your trying tell us that Harvard, Yale and JHU, are in dire need of our tax dollars to the extent that the highest donor class recipients in the world is having trouble with overhead and keeping the lights on? I think thou doest protesteth too much. I doubt they will be closing the labs tomorrow. Morron.

English

3

0

3

1.8K

NIH@NIH·8 Şub

Last year, $9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as “indirect costs.” Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.

English

2.7K

6.3K

32.5K

29.2M

@boylelab.bsky.social@BoyleLab·8 Şub

@mdog4liberty @Brandon07168337 @AndrewChignell @NIH Yep. And it keeps more than the lights on. We have shared equipment that is cutting edge and we (the US) has the best research infrastructure in the WORLD. Cuts like this are not meant to save money they are meant to intimidate universities.

English

0

4

154

Chuck Dog@mdog4liberty·8 Şub

@Brandon07168337 @AndrewChignell @NIH I work at a smaller, regional university without endowment probably 1000 times smaller than Harvard. Overhead truly does keep the lights on.

English