What's happening with the HHS reviews after NIH Council?
Been hearing multiple things about the top-level HHS reviews after Council recommendations, as well as for annual renewal NOAs. Would love some insights, because my mentors are totally unsure of what is happening.
* "Policy" is a bad word now, because of supposed concerns that your policy-relevant research might be designed to support lobbying. And thus the HHS-level review is flagging RPPRs that have that word in the abstract, title, aims, etc.
* Last year some grants had aims renegotiated to ensure alignment with EOs ("diversity" was removed). But now this cannot happen for the 16 (20?) states that have court orders that supposedly protect them.
* If a new proposal recommended for funding raises flags, does it just not get funded, or can it be renegotiated, and if it is from a protected state does that differ?
The first point is super crazy because Podcast Jay keeps wanting evidence-based solutions to health disparities and other problems, which usually means looking at... policies! But consistency is not a strong point of this highly intellectual crowd...