Email today: “Funding for Project [xxx] is hereby terminated… The premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities…"

[76-1]

Let me be unvague.

I am the director of all medicinal chemistry support for the Midwest AViDD Center, where AViDD stands for antiviral drug discovery. It began in 2022 as a collaboration of over 40 professors across many Universities and Research Institutes: U. Minnesota, U. Illinois-Chicago, UF Scripps Research, University of Florida, University of Louisville, UT San Antonio, Baylor College of Medicine, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, Boston University, Boston Children's Hospital. I am a medicinal chemist with 15 years of pharma experience and 19 years of academic experience. IU PhD 1991.

The grant was funded in 2022 for 5 years, with the mandate to focus on entirely new areas of antivirals research, directed toward viruses identified as having "high pandemic potential" and with well-defined milestones to meet.

About a year ago we were told that years 4 and 5 were defunded. Our course of action was to save funds and focus on only the projects with the very best preliminary results, leaving money "left over" to continue the work into a 4th year, a request called a "no cost extension" or "NCE".

Last week we learned that the NCE might not be considered or awarded. So money already allocated, that we did not spend because we were frugal, was taken away with no justification.

Now we are told with no advance notice that funding ends today. Fire everybody.

The notice was not written by NIH officials, since it was riddled with scientific errors. It was written by DOGE or other Trump lackeys and the NIH officer was ordered to send it out.

Does this help?

So, in other words, you were defunded under the Biden Administration and now that the Trump Administration has concurred with that action you're shitty... Got it...

Guess we all missed your post whining about why the Biden Administration decided your approach to a serious concern wasn't worthy of continued funding...

 

[outside shooter]

Continuing antiviral drug discovery research has, as I mentioned, broad bipartisan support. Ted Cruz R-Tex is a co-sponsor of the $80M Senate appropriations bill. There is thus no "orange man bad" tilt to this effort. Some work is being done in Texas, Florida, North Carolina (by a different center), and other red states.

There is a certain level of gutlessness among those unwilling to cross DJT on this, though.

 

[outside shooter]

So, in other words, you were defunded under the Biden Administration and now that the Trump Administration has concurred with that action

Nope.

In an omnibus bill, money in 2022 was approved from HHS, NIAID, NCATS, and Barda for the 5-year effort, but 3 years were funded upfront. The expressed plan was to give years 4 and 5 to the centers meeting all of their milestones and having plans to transition to pharma collaborations.

For reasons unclear to anyone, a plan was never developed for the 3 year review and the earmarked Y4 / Y5 money was "reallocated". Indeed, under the Biden Administration. NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, complained, and as I have said both the House and Senate drafted bills to fund at least Y4.

What is happening now is that we cannot even finish year 3, we cannot spend already allocated funds, the Bills can't get to the floor, and the reasons given for termination are scientifically untrue: We are not focused on treating the COVID-19 pandemic. We are focused on being ready for the NEXT pandemic.

But some douchebag saw "antivirals research" and says we just can't allow that, just like some douchebag saw that pictures of the "Enola Gay" were on a government website, and we just can't allow any of that gay shit to go on.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

In the long run, this will cost lives.

Hopefully it's just the old people

 

[outside shooter]

Hopefully it's just the old people

Not every virus is COVID-19. The Spanish flu pandemic, which peaked in 1918, disproportionately affected individuals in the 20-40 age range, with the highest mortality rates observed in the 25-34 year old group.

median age for ebola patient: 32 years
median age for zika patient: 37 years
median age for Lassa Fever patient: 25 years
median age for Hanta virus patient: 36 years
median age for Marburg virus patient: 30 years

 

[76-1]

Nope.

In an omnibus bill, money in 2022 was approved from HHS, NIAID, NCATS, and Barda for the 5-year effort, but 3 years were funded upfront. The expressed plan was to give years 4 and 5 to the centers meeting all of their milestones and having plans to transition to pharma collaborations.


For reasons unclear to anyone, a plan was never developed for the 3 year review and the earmarked Y4 / Y5 money was "reallocated". Indeed, under the Biden Administration. NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, complained, and as I have said both the House and Senate drafted bills to fund at least Y4.

What is happening now is that we cannot even finish year 3, we cannot spend already allocated funds, the Bills can't get to the floor, and the reasons given for termination are scientifically untrue: We are not focused on treating the COVID-19 pandemic. We are focused on being ready for the NEXT pandemic.

But some douchebag saw "antivirals research" and says we just can't allow that, just like some douchebag saw that pictures of the "Enola Gay" were on a government website, and we just can't allow any of that gay shit to go on.

If that's the case, you probably have an excellent shot of being reconsidered and refunded at some point if your group is able to show any viable progress or findings..., just like The Enola Gay references will eventually be restored...

 

[Spartans9312]

I didn't express it here, but outrage was mitigated by the fact that there were appropriations bills immediately written in both the house and senate, with bipartisan support, to restore at least part of the funding. 80 million dollars, to be specific. 1/25th the cost of one B2 bomber.

Also, as I said, we started cost-cutting to stretch 3 years of funding into 4. Now that frugality is being kneecapped.

The reliance on the CR rather than actually formulating a budget means that the appropriations bills written in both the house and senate will not be discussed.

What was the length of the CR? If the funds were allocated by Congress won’t they be available after the 90 days of impoundment? What happens with the research materials your team has accumulated in the last 2 years?

 

[orangecoast]

Nope.

In an omnibus bill, money in 2022 was approved from HHS, NIAID, NCATS, and Barda for the 5-year effort, but 3 years were funded upfront. The expressed plan was to give years 4 and 5 to the centers meeting all of their milestones and having plans to transition to pharma collaborations.

For reasons unclear to anyone, a plan was never developed for the 3 year review and the earmarked Y4 / Y5 money was "reallocated". Indeed, under the Biden Administration. NIAID, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, complained, and as I have said both the House and Senate drafted bills to fund at least Y4.

What is happening now is that we cannot even finish year 3, we cannot spend already allocated funds, the Bills can't get to the floor, and the reasons given for termination are scientifically untrue: We are not focused on treating the COVID-19 pandemic. We are focused on being ready for the NEXT pandemic.

But some douchebag saw "antivirals research" and says we just can't allow that, just like some douchebag saw that pictures of the "Enola Gay" were on a government website, and we just can't allow any of that gay shit to go on.

Alot of good thought has gone into your posts over the last few hours. Are you assigning these hours to the anti-viral project?

 

[outside shooter]

The Senate and House Bills to partially restore funding are technically "new funds" and don't fall under the CR, by my understanding.

As to the research results, I guess we publish them and hope that another country builds on our work and has drugs to sell the USA when we need them.

 

[outside shooter]

Alot of good thought has gone into your posts over the last few hours. Are you assigning these hours to the anti-viral project?

Nope. No such allocations are allowed after 5:47 PM on 3/24/2025.

A lot.

Two words.

 

[hookyIU1990]

You doxxed yourself with the AViDD brag, dude. Might want to delete the post and ask the mods to delete the replies to it.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Not every virus is COVID-19. The Spanish flu pandemic, which peaked in 1918, disproportionately affected individuals in the 20-40 age range, with the highest mortality rates observed in the 25-34 year old group.

median age for ebola patient: 32 years
median age for zika patient: 37 years
median age for Lassa Fever patient: 25 years
median age for Hanta virus patient: 36 years
median age for Marburg virus patient: 30 years

Not necessarily...

https://www.science.org/content/article/killer-1918-flu-didn-t-pick-healthy-after-all

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2304545120

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

40 professors. Insane number of universities. Maybe that can be consolidated. Maybe there’s infrastructure ways. Redundancies that can be eliminated.

We are 35 trillion in debt but the second you start cutting oh no not that. These schools administration costs alone are a joke

Closer to $37Trillion in debt .....

Moderna received $10Billion in Federal gifts to develop it's version of the long-term death Vax
It was also gifted immunity to prosecution for injuries and deaths resulting from it's rushed, falsified safety testing.

Moderna, at the time of the government handout had a market cap of $6B+-

Moderna had revenues of $35B and net profit of $25B from Vax sales.

Moderna's market cap grew to somewhere near $100B.

Amount returned to the US Taxpayer?

BIG FAT ZERO.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

About a year ago we were told that years 4 and 5 were defunded. Our course of action was to save funds and focus on only the projects with the very best preliminary results, leaving money "left over" to continue the work into a 4th year, a request called a "no cost extension" or "NCE".

So, to be clear, funding started being cut last year. What was the prior Administration's rationale?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Cancer research is another story. It's being flagged as "woke" since a new cancer drug likely disproportionately benefits people in groups with higher rates of cancer mortality. That includes some non-whites. Can't have that woke shit going on.

Link?

 

[larsIU]

And I’m all for it. Reimagine how it’s funded. Think outside of the box. Raze the building for phd’s in public admin gender studies and a hundred other things and save the the tuition waivers and stipends and reallocate it to cancer. Pandemics. Make law school 2 years and the third you work. Cut faculty

Agree on the superfluous majors and study programs.

Do not agree on how it's funded. I believe the governemnt should always fund scientific research. I know your feeling on shooter but it's clear what he and his team were working on wasn't some woke nonsense.

Babies and bathwater is an analogy but, well, it works. This is one of those situations. I think you're right that Musk and Trump just wnat to move fast instead of purposefully. I don't really think they need to and, to be sure, I think it's hurting them politically and, at least for Musk, financially (though I'm sure he doesn't feel it).

Where was shooters outrage when years 4 and 5 were defunded a year ago?

What time period did the last CR cover?

Were the funds allocated by Congress and are they subject to impoundment past 90 days?

Murt has a point…any time something is cut someone throws a bitch fit…Congress needs to get their head out of their ass.

I think he answered the first question.

DUnno.

Dunno.

Agree but let's cut the dumb shit, not medical research like what shooter is working on. AGain, Ted ****ing Cruz supported the bill. Lord. Musk and Trump really are dancing like nobody's watching.

My question…are we really funding it or are we taking out a loan?

We're always taking out a loan.

 

[outside shooter]

Link?

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5335599/trump-dei-research-cancer-rural-whites

keywords like disparity, inequity, African American, and women's health flag your grant as being diversity oriented

..there's an uncertain sense of censorship: "We aren't sure what we can say in our grants. I very freely — before — wrote about disparities and equity in my grants. Actually, the NIH had a requirement that you had to write about equity and disparities in every grant."

Across the nation's scientific communities, researchers say they feel confused and concerned.

"It feels like there's no adults in the room," says K, a clinician who works at the VA. NPR granted her anonymity because she fears losing her job for speaking out. K researches why rural veterans — and women in particular — see doctors less, and die younger than counterparts in cities from cancer.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Agree on the superfluous majors and study programs.

Do not agree on how it's funded. I believe the governemnt should always fund scientific research. I know your feeling on shooter but it's clear what he and his team were working on wasn't some woke nonsense.

Babies and bathwater is an analogy but, well, it works. This is one of those situations. I think you're right that Musk and Trump just wnat to move fast instead of purposefully. I don't really think they need to and, to be sure, I think it's hurting them politically and, at least for Musk, financially (though I'm sure he doesn't feel it).

I think he answered the first question.

DUnno.

Dunno.

Agree but let's cut the dumb shit, not medical research like what shooter is working on. AGain, Ted ****ing Cruz supported the bill. Lord. Musk and Trump really are dancing like nobody's watching.



We're always taking out a loan.

I’m fine with the gov funding that research. That doesn’t mean the immunity, bloat, how the universities are doing the research, etc shouldn’t be examined. There’s a lifeline attitude between faculty and gov and that’s yucky. We deal with engineering depts and the only thing these faculty members care about is getting gov grants. Become more entrepreneurial. We’d gladly give them a bigger cut of our business if they had an ounce of urgency. But no. Most of their time is spent looking for grants. How much is Pfizer giving back to these programs?

 

[Lucy01]

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5335599/trump-dei-research-cancer-rural-whites

keywords like disparity, inequity, African American, and women's health flag your grant as being diversity oriented

..there's an uncertain sense of censorship: "We aren't sure what we can say in our grants. I very freely — before — wrote about disparities and equity in my grants. Actually, the NIH had a requirement that you had to write about equity and disparities in every grant."

Across the nation's scientific communities, researchers say they feel confused and concerned.

"It feels like there's no adults in the room," says K, a clinician who works at the VA. NPR granted her anonymity because she fears losing her job for speaking out. K researches why rural veterans — and women in particular — see doctors less, and die younger than counterparts in cities from cancer.

I hope you lose your job!

 

[mcmurtry66]

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5335599/trump-dei-research-cancer-rural-whites

keywords like disparity, inequity, African American, and women's health flag your grant as being diversity oriented

..there's an uncertain sense of censorship: "We aren't sure what we can say in our grants. I very freely — before — wrote about disparities and equity in my grants. Actually, the NIH had a requirement that you had to write about equity and disparities in every grant."

Across the nation's scientific communities, researchers say they feel confused and concerned.

"It feels like there's no adults in the room," says K, a clinician who works at the VA. NPR granted her anonymity because she fears losing her job for speaking out. K researches why rural veterans — and women in particular — see doctors less, and die younger than counterparts in cities from cancer.

Yes I’ve written nih grants. It’s become stupid woke as fck. Everything disparity. Inequalities. Racial bs. Too much. And you can’t even frame it as @UncleMark suggested it in a neutral fashion. The questions are like they were drafted by a purple haired social worker from brown

 

[BCCHoosier]

No one is here to be contrarian. You put me Spartans googly DANC in a thread you have to know we’re gonna bring it

Yep. Legends in your own mind. I do often agree with you, but in this case I think your take is wrong. Especially as it relates to rare (orphan drugs) diseases that often gain little traction outside of academic settings.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Yep. Legends in your own mind. I do often agree with you, but in this case I think your take is wrong. Especially as it relates to rare (orphan drugs) diseases that often gain little traction outside of academic settings.

Use your words and explain how my take was wrong within the context of pandemic research, corp profits from same, and concurrent immunity. Ie What I wrote about. Shitter’s noting fraud falsification is of little import

 

[outside shooter]

Some of you seem to think we write a grant and someone at the NIH decides "you're my buddy from school and this is a good idea, you're good to go, spend away, how much do you need?"

No, 20 professors read the 100 page proposal. They consider not just the scientific merit but also the ability of the researchers to do the work, the cost effectiveness of the plan, the plan to commercialize the end products in pharma partnerships and/or startup companies. All of this is all laid out upfront and is something you have to shine on. 100 people apply and maybe 10 get funded. It's hard. then you get kneecapped when some teenager with a pocket protector does a word search and finds the word COVID in your grant and pulls out the chainsaw.

 

[snarlcakes]

Have you ever wondered why American universities are the best and most desirable in the world. And the benefit we as a country get from the discoveries funded by our government as opposed to those funded (and then invariably kept secret) by the pharma companies? Additionally, and @outside shooter can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe if there are multiple institutions working on a program they share data/results/findings back and forth as part of pushlishing, no?

No. The universities are the most desirable because the U.S. has the best economy in the world. Also, the universities are funded by U.S. taxpayers, not the government.

 

[BCCHoosier]

Any government funding going to you or your team needs to be cut immediately. I do wish you all the success in raising private funds for your adventures.

You are a teacher, correct? What state? How do you feel about teacher and other public pensions?

 

[snarlcakes]

You are a teacher, correct? What state? How do you feel about teacher and other public pensions?

The states can choose to fund it or not. The federal government shouldn't. I don't like public pensions because they're terrible in comparison to 401k match programs.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Murt has a point…any time something is cut someone throws a bitch fit…Congress needs to get their head out of their ass.

What should government spend money on?

I think there are avenues to cut but there are government services and spending that are necessary and/or possibly civilizational multipliers that we should look into. The impression I get is that the Trumpian view is that governmwnt should spend money on the military/national security (like border patrol and other federal law enforcement) and social safety net programs. I just don't think that completely matches the model of what I would want.

We fund people with guns who enforce a government which takes money from these people and gives it to those people. Everything else is apparently on the chopping block. I can't get anyone to give me a coherent response as to where this goes. It is either Yarvin or Project 2025 that appears to be guiding two separate factions and nobody can really articulate a different vision. What does government look like if Trump gets his way?

 

[BCCHoosier]

The states can choose to fund it or not. The federal government shouldn't. I'll also add, I don't like public pensions because they're terrible in comparison 401k match programs.

My wife is a teacher in Illinois. The math does not add up from an income replacement ratio versus contribution standpoint.

I'd argue that most teachers don't make enough to contribute meaningful amounts to a 403b. We max hers out due to my job, but based on the people I've talked to, very few contribute. And those that due are investing very small amounts. The pension does make up for the low pay.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Some of you seem to think we write a grant and someone at the NIH decides "you're my buddy from school and this is a good idea, you're good to go, spend away, how much do you need?"

No, 20 professors read the 100 page proposal. They consider not just the scientific merit but also the ability of the researchers to do the work, the cost effectiveness of the plan, the plan to commercialize the end products in pharma partnerships and/or startup companies. All of this is all laid out upfront and is something you have to shine on. 100 people apply and maybe 10 get funded. It's hard. then you get kneecapped when some teenager with a pocket protector does a word search and finds the word COVID in your grant and pulls out the chainsaw.

I’ve written countless nih and other grants. I know exactly how it works.

Try applying for a military contract. That’s a whole different ball game

 

[snarlcakes]

What should government spend money on?

I think there are avenues to cut but there are government services and spending that are necessary and/or possibly civilizational multipliers that we should look into. The impression I get is that the Trumpian view is that governmwnt should spend money on the military/national security (like border patrol and other federal law enforcement) and social safety net programs. I just don't think that completely matches the model of what I would want.

We fund people with guns who enforce a government which takes money from these people and gives it to those people. Everything else is apparently on the chopping block. I can't get anyone to give me a coherent response as to where this goes. It is either Yarvin or Project 2025 that appears to be guiding two separate factions and nobody can really articulate a different vision. What does government look like if Trump gets his way?

I'm mostly military/national security and probably half the agencies we currently have. I'm not for SS. Medicare/Medicaid I would probably relent on because I don't know enough to propose an alternative. The goal would be 10% of GDP and I would settle for anything below 15%. States handle the rest.

 

[snarlcakes]

My wife is a teacher in Illinois. The math does not add up from an income replacement ratio versus contribution standpoint.

I'd argue that most teachers don't make enough to contribute meaningful amounts to a 403b. We max hers out due to my job, but based on the people I've talked to, very few contribute. And those that due are investing very small amounts. The pension does make up for the low pay.

It's state dependent. Illinois has a better pension than Indiana. Indiana's is 1/3 of a teachers highest 5 years and it doesn't increase with inflation. Teachers who retired in 2019 have lost close to 30% of their purchasing power. They also don't cover health insurance when you retire. Not sure if Illinois does.

 

[larsIU]

No. The universities are the most desirable because the U.S. has the best economy in the world. Also, the universities are funded by U.S. taxpayers, not the government.

I mean, yes. But........they could go to France, the UK, Australia, most of northern Eurpoe, etc. and have the same quality of living.

And our universities are rated higher overall.

Can't deny your point though.

 

[mcmurtry66]

What should government spend money on?

I think there are avenues to cut but there are government services and spending that are necessary and/or possibly civilizational multipliers that we should look into. The impression I get is that the Trumpian view is that governmwnt should spend money on the military/national security (like border patrol and other federal law enforcement) and social safety net programs. I just don't think that completely matches the model of what I would want.

We fund people with guns who enforce a government which takes money from these people and gives it to those people. Everything else is apparently on the chopping block. I can't get anyone to give me a coherent response as to where this goes. It is either Yarvin or Project 2025 that appears to be guiding two separate factions and nobody can really articulate a different vision. What does government look like if Trump gets his way?

He’s of too many minds. He’s philosophically and ideologically an old school Dem being towed around by a lean and mean billionaire genius who is paradoxical himself in light of his reliance on subsidies and gov contracts.

@outside shooter shitter I’d absolutely fund your work. It’s impt. But we’re in a new world order and you don’t want your shit at the mercy of the vagaries of politicians. AOC Is leading the Dems. She’s worthless. You may end up with another trump disciple. Get off your fat woke ass. Get a real bike. Put in the hours and get these companies to fund your important work. Ive gotten money and in kind from big pharma and it’s a hell of a lot easier than the gov. The renewal takes five minutes from Pfizer

 

[hookyIU1990]

Get off your fat woke ass.

The idea of him constantly calling others fat is hilarious now. Projection strikes again.

I'm not convinced he even got this email.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The idea of him constantly calling others fat is hilarious now. Projection strikes again.

I'm not convinced he even got this email.

Did you know at COH U no phd candidates get tuition waivers or stipends? They find a way to fund it. First lesson in their education

 

[Spartans9312]

What should government spend money on?

I think there are avenues to cut but there are government services and spending that are necessary and/or possibly civilizational multipliers that we should look into. The impression I get is that the Trumpian view is that governmwnt should spend money on the military/national security (like border patrol and other federal law enforcement) and social safety net programs. I just don't think that completely matches the model of what I would want.

We fund people with guns who enforce a government which takes money from these people and gives it to those people. Everything else is apparently on the chopping block. I can't get anyone to give me a coherent response as to where this goes. It is either Yarvin or Project 2025 that appears to be guiding two separate factions and nobody can really articulate a different vision. What does government look like if Trump gets his way?

1. National defense

How many tax dollars do we need to adequately fund defense

I would start there and put that number out for everyone to see.

Now…if you want this it is going to cost you $X. Just some transparency and dollar figure assigned to each tax bracket.

Right now there are very few who can even rationalize the process. The government is like all the families that act like they are living large yet everything is financed via credit card that will never be paid off. It’s all a sham

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I lead a research team studying /finding new antiviral drugs (NOT vaccines) for any and all viruses of pandemic potential. Not just COVID-19, but Ebola, Zika, Lassa fever, Dengue, Machupo viruses, and others.

But I guess we are shutting it all down. Someone (DOGE?) has determined that no more antiviral outbreaks will ever occur in the future!

Email this morning: “Funding for Project Number [xxx] is hereby terminated… The premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities…"

"The end of the pandemic provides cause to terminate COVID-related grant funds. These grant funds were issued for a limited purpose: to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, the grant funds are no longer necessary… no corrective action is possible here."

"The premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities, and no modification of the project could align the project with agency priorities. Costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable”.


---
To be clear, this is not a COVID-19-specific grant. It targets many other viruses. With respect to COVID-19, our main focus is targeting ALL coronaviruses; SARS1, MERS, SARS2, etc so we have something for any future "COVID-XY" by blocking machinery common to all coronaviruses.

But we are apparently throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems I need to lay off people ASAP. Graduate students, postdocs, staff scientists....

Have you ever, EVER just paused long enough to think that maybe it's just you that they are after? I mean obviously what you were doing would solve world peace, climate change, starving pygmies and that DOGE coin now has more name recognition than Bitcoin. With potential success like that, They must be out to get you.
Is your name Anthony by chance?

 

[hookyIU1990]

oddly this got no press at all: $577 million dollars allocated for pandemic preparedness therapeutics research

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220518/NIH-awards-24577-million-to-establish-AViDD-Centers-for-Pathogens-of-Pandemic-Concern.aspx The NIH has established nine Antiviral Drug Discovery (AViDD) Centers for Pathogens of Pandemic Concern. It's not specifically for COVID-19 and there is no...

indiana.forums.rivals.com

From beginning to end.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

I lead a research team studying /finding new antiviral drugs (NOT vaccines) for any and all viruses of pandemic potential. Not just COVID-19, but Ebola, Zika, Lassa fever, Dengue, Machupo viruses, and others.

But I guess we are shutting it all down. Someone (DOGE?) has determined that no more antiviral outbreaks will ever occur in the future!

Email this morning: “Funding for Project Number [xxx] is hereby terminated… The premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities…"

"The end of the pandemic provides cause to terminate COVID-related grant funds. These grant funds were issued for a limited purpose: to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, the grant funds are no longer necessary… no corrective action is possible here."

"The premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities, and no modification of the project could align the project with agency priorities. Costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable”.


---
To be clear, this is not a COVID-19-specific grant. It targets many other viruses. With respect to COVID-19, our main focus is targeting ALL coronaviruses; SARS1, MERS, SARS2, etc so we have something for any future "COVID-XY" by blocking machinery common to all coronaviruses.

But we are apparently throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems I need to lay off people ASAP. Graduate students, postdocs, staff scientists....

Trump has outlawed viruses along with pennies, paper straws, and Mexicans. No need for further research

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5335599/trump-dei-research-cancer-rural-whites

keywords like disparity, inequity, African American, and women's health flag your grant as being diversity oriented

..there's an uncertain sense of censorship: "We aren't sure what we can say in our grants. I very freely — before — wrote about disparities and equity in my grants. Actually, the NIH had a requirement that you had to write about equity and disparities in every grant."

Across the nation's scientific communities, researchers say they feel confused and concerned.

"It feels like there's no adults in the room," says K, a clinician who works at the VA. NPR granted her anonymity because she fears losing her job for speaking out. K researches why rural veterans — and women in particular — see doctors less, and die younger than counterparts in cities from cancer.

What is the new cancer drug?

That's not exactly what you are making it out to be. DEI and focus on research that only helps certain groups of people doesn't have a place in government funding. The government should fund projects that serve its constituents, not segments of them.

If private donors want to bankroll projects that disproportionately focus on or benefit minorities (whether race, ethnicity, religion, etc.), that's their prerogative.