Yes. But with all due respect to the author, the manner of composition seems more like the piece was born out of interoffice politics and turf wars. I would expect a clearer model of say, for example, what the role of the group is and why this is the way NIH should be constituted rather than any way and predicted effects of its absence.
I'm not saying OP is wrong. But just I didn't get enough information to actually credit OP as an honest broker.
Very interesting. I think it's important to hear these sort of stories, lest people be overly valorized. In a similar vein I really enjoyed this critique of Fauci - https://www.thedriftmag.com/the-case-against-fauci/ (the NIH is currently in the process of putting up a historical display valorizing Facui in the NIH Clinical Center, in one of the most highly-trafficked places on campus)
I wonder what developments got Scientific Management Review Board decided to meet this November after so may years of dormancy. I guess it was probably in response to Kathy McMorris Roger's whitepaper, which was released in June?
Just a note, somewhat philistine perhaps: take it or ignore it.
Don't spend so much time opening with the bureaucratic throat-clearing. I'd really like to read what you have to say, but I lose patience with all the division names and their responsibilities. One's tolerance for that is finite.
no, Berg. His story is heavy on the bureaucracy. Something happened at NIH and I'm quite prepared to despise Collins, but I still don't know what, exactly.
No hostility intended at all! All of what Berg wrote is actually important background information for a reader to have. If you're not interested in the details of how NIH works, you're not the audience for Berg's piece.
I have a piece coming out about openings. A Nobel laureate actually told me he wished he could write more interesting stories in his books, which are pretty dry, and I turned AI loose on his opening text. It said, in fact, the same things I would have said. So this topic was on my mind.
This article never explains why all the other deputies besides Francis Collins thought NCRR was weak man on the totem pole.
The last paragraph hints at why: Fear of opposing Collins.
Yes. But with all due respect to the author, the manner of composition seems more like the piece was born out of interoffice politics and turf wars. I would expect a clearer model of say, for example, what the role of the group is and why this is the way NIH should be constituted rather than any way and predicted effects of its absence.
I'm not saying OP is wrong. But just I didn't get enough information to actually credit OP as an honest broker.
Very interesting. I think it's important to hear these sort of stories, lest people be overly valorized. In a similar vein I really enjoyed this critique of Fauci - https://www.thedriftmag.com/the-case-against-fauci/ (the NIH is currently in the process of putting up a historical display valorizing Facui in the NIH Clinical Center, in one of the most highly-trafficked places on campus)
I wonder what developments got Scientific Management Review Board decided to meet this November after so may years of dormancy. I guess it was probably in response to Kathy McMorris Roger's whitepaper, which was released in June?
Yeah, our HOA passed a rule preventing raids on emergency reserve funds.
That just drove the raids underground, and in the process of hiding the raids, destroyed financial transparency. Director can be amoral cowards.
Just a note, somewhat philistine perhaps: take it or ignore it.
Don't spend so much time opening with the bureaucratic throat-clearing. I'd really like to read what you have to say, but I lose patience with all the division names and their responsibilities. One's tolerance for that is finite.
are you talking about my introduction of Berg?
no, Berg. His story is heavy on the bureaucracy. Something happened at NIH and I'm quite prepared to despise Collins, but I still don't know what, exactly.
Am I lazy? For sure.
Life is short, read something else! :)
as I've done.
And this is why no one will give you feedback: they're afraid of a hostile reaction like that.
No hostility intended at all! All of what Berg wrote is actually important background information for a reader to have. If you're not interested in the details of how NIH works, you're not the audience for Berg's piece.
OK, thanks.
I have a piece coming out about openings. A Nobel laureate actually told me he wished he could write more interesting stories in his books, which are pretty dry, and I turned AI loose on his opening text. It said, in fact, the same things I would have said. So this topic was on my mind.
Expecting to publish it on Sunday.
Another formative role model bites the dust!!
Aw shucks is about right for a home-schooled North Carolinian.