Comments on: No basic science for NIH? http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/ About viruses and viral disease Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:38:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: profvrr http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/comment-page-1/#comment-21917 profvrr Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:52:41 +0000 http://www.virology.ws/?p=2149#comment-21917 That's an excellent point. Some say that the human genome sequence has<br>yet to 'pay off'. Although I'm certain it eventually will. That's an excellent point. Some say that the human genome sequence has
yet to 'pay off'. Although I'm certain it eventually will.

]]> By: profvrr http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/comment-page-1/#comment-17855 profvrr Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:52:41 +0000 http://www.virology.ws/?p=2149#comment-17855 That's an excellent point. Some say that the human genome sequence has<br>yet to 'pay off'. Although I'm certain it eventually will. That's an excellent point. Some say that the human genome sequence has
yet to 'pay off'. Although I'm certain it eventually will.

]]> By: tjkelleher http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/comment-page-1/#comment-17825 tjkelleher Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:59:23 +0000 http://www.virology.ws/?p=2149#comment-17825 Deeply ironic statement coming from a man who headed the NHGRI: it hardly made him a leader in translational science. Deeply ironic statement coming from a man who headed the NHGRI: it hardly made him a leader in translational science.

]]> By: DavidNL http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/comment-page-1/#comment-17779 DavidNL Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:17:53 +0000 http://www.virology.ws/?p=2149#comment-17779 Yeah, I edited my comment almost immediately after posting (before I <br>got your email) to account for that. Thanks for the reply. Your blog <br>is great.<br><br><br>David<br><br>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br>David N. Levy, Ph.D.<br>Assistant Professor<br>Department of Basic Science<br>New York University College of Dentistry<br>921 Schwartz Building<br>345 E. 24th Street<br>New York, NY 10010-4086<br><br>Office: 212-998-9287<br>Lab: 212-998-9276, 998-9138<br>Fax: 212-995-4087<br>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yeah, I edited my comment almost immediately after posting (before I
got your email) to account for that. Thanks for the reply. Your blog
is great.

David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David N. Levy, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Basic Science
New York University College of Dentistry
921 Schwartz Building
345 E. 24th Street
New York, NY 10010-4086

Office: 212-998-9287
Lab: 212-998-9276, 998-9138
Fax: 212-995-4087
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

]]> By: profvrr http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/comment-page-1/#comment-17778 profvrr Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:07:46 +0000 http://www.virology.ws/?p=2149#comment-17778 You are absolutely correct that NSF funds basic research. However<br>their budget is far smaller than that of NIH and I'm not sure that<br>they could pick up the slack if Collins decides to take basic science<br>out of the NIH portfolio. You are absolutely correct that NSF funds basic research. However
their budget is far smaller than that of NIH and I'm not sure that
they could pick up the slack if Collins decides to take basic science
out of the NIH portfolio.

]]> By: DavidNL http://www.virology.ws/2009/10/09/no-basic-science-for-nih/comment-page-1/#comment-17777 DavidNL Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:02:56 +0000 http://www.virology.ws/?p=2149#comment-17777 I agree that this is a worrying statement. These days the time from basic science discovery to application within or as a technology can be very short, so this quote suggests a significant lack of vision on Collins' part. The implicit suggestion that scientists engaged in basic biological research are not as a rule thinking about the real world applications of their work seems strange coming from him.<br>I would point out, however, that a role for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to fund basic science that is not as evidently health related, and some of your examples might better be NSF than NIH funded. A quick search of the NSF web site reveals several grants on phage, for example. I agree that this is a worrying statement. These days the time from basic science discovery to application within or as a technology can be very short, so this quote suggests a significant lack of vision on Collins' part. The implicit suggestion that scientists engaged in basic biological research are not as a rule thinking about the real world applications of their work seems strange coming from him.
I would point out, however, that a role for the National Science Foundation (NSF) is to fund basic science that is not as evidently health related, and some of your examples might better be NSF than NIH funded. A quick search of the NSF web site reveals several grants on phage, for example.

]]>