Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: HA: USM gets largest grant ever
MS Scientist

Date:
RE: HA: USM gets largest grant ever
Permalink Closed



That is interesting, Invictus, because the BRIN program administered by NIH did not intend for money to go to community colleges; the program is supposed to fund four-year and higher institutions, not community colleges.  This doesn't mean that community colleges are not deserving of assistance, but rather that this particular funding program was not intended to aid those educational institutions.  You cannot take specifically-targetted NIH funds and spend them on whatever endeavour you wish, no matter how worthy that initiative might be.


 


One of the main reasons that NIH created the BRIN program was to provide some assistance to scientists at underfunded 4-year & masters-level institutions (universities lacking equipment, facilities, seed money), by giving them money to conduct the research necessary to obtain the preliminary data that is required now for applying for an NIH grant.  These days, "no preliminary data = no NIH grant".  By depriving the so-called "partners" of their share of BRIN money, USM is depriving these schools of the ability to compete for NIH grants.



__________________
StuckInMObilewifdesememfisblus

Date:
Permalink Closed

That was a verse from Dylan Thomas?

__________________
Anagram unscrambler

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:

Originally posted by: StuckInMObilewifdesememfisblus

"That was a verse from Dylan Thomas?"

Stuck in Mobile with the Memphis Blues?

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: MS Scientist

"That is interesting, Invictus, because the BRIN program administered by NIH did not intend for money to go to community colleges; the program is supposed to fund four-year and higher institutions, not community colleges."


The money was not disbursed to community colleges, but there were a small number of community college students involved through the BRIN program at USM. The monies were managed completely by USM. As far as it not being on the up & up, you can stifle that one, too, because I know for a stone cold fact that USM was reporting those students (and their institutional affiliations) to NIH.


__________________
MS Scientist

Date:
Permalink Closed

As far as NIH goes, providing money to support the activities of community college students is providing support to community colleges, no matter whether or not any money is handed over directly to a community college.  The intended targets of the BRIN grants were 4-year and masters-level institutions (and the students at those institutions).  Personally, I would like to know how you know that it is a "...stone cold fact..." that community college students and their affiliations were reported, and in what context this information was provided to NIH.  Did the MFGN administrators claim that they funded community college student participation after they had exhausted attempts to enroll the involvement of students from the 4-year, masters level university partners whose names appear on the grant alongside USM's? This point may seem minor to an instructor/administrator at a community college, but I wonder how you feel when money earmarked for the sciences at your community college is diverted, even "...on the up and up...", toward regional 4-year institutions?  NIH awarded administrative control of one of the two BRIN grants, that Mississippi as a state is eligible for, to USM because historically-underfunded 4-year and masters-level institutions in Mississippi agreed to participate in the initiative.  Every community college in Mississippi could have signed the grant proposal and it wouldn't have mattered to NIH, because BRIN grants are not intended to fund community college activities.  USM could have applied for this grant as a lone participant, but it would not have received it because the goal of the program is to fund statewide research networks among 4-year and higher institutions.  The signatures of officials from the historically-underfunded schools were necessary in order to obtain the funding, but after the money arrived, the partner institutions became nonexistent in the process.  The BRIN grant establishing the MFGN had three "prongs" to it: (1) providing seed grants to scientists at the partner universities, (2) providing funds for the purchase of lab equipment at partner institutions and at the 4 Mississippi research universities, and (3) funding travel/living expenses of scientists from university partners while conducting collaborative studies at one of the 4 research universities in Mississippi.  Almost none of the resources that were advertised to the partner institutions prior to submission of the grant proposal have actually been made available to scientists and students at these schools (Tougaloo College being the exception).  The articles in the newspapers announcing the continued funding for the MFGN were quite revealing; nothing is mentioned in the announcement about the involvement of the historically-underfunded partners.



__________________
ram

Date:
Permalink Closed

MS Scientist--


It saddens me to think that those underfunded four-year colleges have apparently been left at the station despite the reported necessity of their participation. Does the funding agency not require periodic documentation of the proper use of the grant money?  If so, do you know whether USM has provided accurate information?



__________________
Arnold Schwarzgnome

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: ram

"MS Scientist--
If so, do you know whether USM has provided accurate information?
"


USM? Provide accurate information? Do I hear hell freezing over?

__________________
MS Scientist

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:

Originally posted by: ram

"MS Scientist-- It saddens me to think that those underfunded four-year colleges have apparently been left at the station despite the reported necessity of their participation. Does the funding agency not require periodic documentation of the proper use of the grant money?  If so, do you know whether USM has provided accurate information?"

Those are both good questions, ram.  The funding agency does require periodic reports about the use of BRIN money, but since the grants are not competitive (every eligible state was guaranteed to receive 2 of them) there has not been aggressive oversight of NIH concerning the use of the money.  All of the reports on the grant are submitted by the grant administrators at USM.  The partner institutions contribute nothing to any paperwork that is tendered to NIH. The people on the USM end have to demonstrate that a functional network exists, and they have been careful to create at least the illusion of real partnerships.  For example, at this spring's Mississippi Academy of Science meeting, the MFGN sponsored a session... that's a research network, right?  The MFGN has a website, and on it they have a "user forum" board, and they promote it as part of the "network".  When you first use the board, you have to sign up, providing your name, institutional affiliation, etc., and information about this forum is used to document the existence of a network.  There has been some funding of travel, by a small number of students (<15), to the state's 4 research universities for research participation, but three of the partnering institutions have been left out of these activities. This is what you get for $6,000,000? I do not believe that what USM reports to NIH is inaccurate, but I do think it is inflated, and if it was ever questioned it would be found to be insufficient, too.

__________________
Invictus

Date:
Permalink Closed

quote:
Originally posted by: MS Scientist

"As far as NIH goes, providing money to support the activities of community college students is providing support to community colleges, no matter whether or not any money is handed over directly to a community college."


I cannot certify that any money was awarded to students prior to university transfer, but I do know that USM's grants administrators were requesting student information from community colleges. They were also requesting dollar values of any NIH grants awarded to community colleges during each reporting period (typically zero). The long & short of it is that the documentation provided to NIH was pretty explicit about what institutions were involved & I can only presume that, given the extension of the grant, it was cool with NIH.

But to the latter part of your post, you would be utterly amazed how much grant money ear-marked for 2-year colleges gets awarded to universities. A good many university education schools nationwide are almost completely funded by grant money that was supposed to support 2-year colleges.

__________________
«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard