Профиль

Right? When I filled it out, I thought there must be more to it, because it was so much simpler.

They would have to revoke tenure for some people 🤣

Absolutely. We’re academics, so we don’t even get a gold watch on retirement. Pretty petty to not at least give us lifetime email and library cards with no strings.

Each year? We as a faculty vote for whether to grant emeritus status, and then lifetime rights to email, library, etc. are granted.

Right now, we get half off. But I think the benefit comes out of departmental funds.

Congratulations and super well deserved!

So happy for you! Such a rollercoaster.

So is the proposal on bikes or bones?

What's funny is that NSF had made the template a requirement and then changed it to a suggestion. Makes me curious about the rationale there. Maybe they were getting sick of PIs getting reprimanded or worse for not following the rule verbatim.

Doh, missed that.

Here's the NSF language preceding that template, so yes, extremely similar: "Letters of collaboration should be limited to stating the intent to collaborate and should not contain endorsements or evaluation of the proposed project."

NSF used to require a bare-bones template: "If the proposal submitted by Dr. X entitled Y is selected for funding by NSF, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description or the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal."

I noticed that too. PIs will surely be incentivized to propose risky projects if Y3-5 funding gets pulled when an aim 'fails.'

That was painful to listen to. Beyond being factually wrong, the entire MYF premise is bullshit. If he were to poll ESIs and MIRA applicants (and anyone else beyond his examples), I imagine that a large supermajority would have little to no use for additional funds up front.

This is tenure denial on the front end for political reasons, so not granted for capricious reasons, but yes.

That's really tough. Even in the before times, I've known folks skipped with good scores with no reason given. Transparency for these types of decisions is really important. We'll see if they publish the funding curves again for this FY.

I would guess that maybe 5-10% of MIRA applicants have a second large award.

The Jan 2025 for EIs seems fairly normal with a small number of skips. May 2025 for EIs looks bizarre. I know that at-risk are being prioritized, but feels like that's almost all of us.

NIGMS is interesting. So far, looks like for this FY only R01s have been MYF and not R35s. There are already similar numbers of total R01s as last year, but there are 200 fewer R35s. Not sure where they'll end up, and if there will be a deluge of MYF.

Thanks, that last one is the paper I was thinking about.