Sequestration gouges U of M and Mayo Clinic research budgets

  • Article by: Dan Browning , Star Tribune
  • Updated: April 15, 2013 - 8:54 AM

Officials worry that federal sequestration could take a toll on promising medical studies.

  • 20
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
honeybooApr. 14, 13 8:39 PM

Is this article referring to the sequestration plan the Obama administration devised?

mdachsApr. 14, 13 8:44 PM

A 3% reduction for Mayo and a 6% reduction for the U of M is hardly gouging! And the Tribune used the term, "gouging," to describe the impact of inflation, too (which has been at historically low levels the past several years in the U.S.). Another great example of the Tribune's exaggerations. Can we please use objective, rather than charged, words and phrases to write articles?

boris123Apr. 14, 13 9:04 PM

Do you really think the University of Minnesota needs money for a study investigating how dieting affects the sex drive of hamsters? There is so much waste in every nook and cranny of government in addition to transparent blantent waste that it makes sane people's heads explode!

bikiesterApr. 14, 1310:27 PM

The comments of folks like boris123 underscore the importance mandating courses in critical thinking and science. It might be hard for some to see links between hamsters and humans, but one simply needs to look at the history of biomedical research to see that some of the most important discoveries have come out of studies that our friend boris and William Proxmire and John McCain and the like just don't think are useful. The bigger issue is trying to make a plan for the future. It's never been clear to me why the NIH and NSF don't protect their interests by mandating some small percent of any intellectual venture that started with NIH/NSF funding be given back to those organizations. Myriad major biomedical discoveries that have led to companies were made as a direct result of government grants. Why no royalties or licensing fees. I say this as a scientist. And finally, the current funding climate sucks, but big labs and big PIs have gotten to be prima donnas. Might be time to cut back on $300/night hotels for scientific conferences and maybe start making their own buffers instead of buying them premade. Just saying.

erikj3Apr. 15, 13 2:52 AM

Sequestration was MEANT to amount to cuts so stupid that everyone (read: Republicans) would come to their senses and it would be cancelled. Now, unfortunately, we have to live with it. Frankly, our government is unmanageable due primarily to a couple of reasons: gerrymandered Congressional districts, and huge amounts of corporate cash overriding the whole democratic process. Until these two things change, NOTHING will change.

karendavid816Apr. 15, 13 6:04 AM

Most American workers have by now figured out how to cope with a 2% salary reduction from the social security increase. The U and Mayo giant research grant business might drop a few vice presidents of this or that and survive a 5% cut. If we can't get through the sequester we are simply screwed. The $16 trillion deficit is projected to increase by $5 trillion more under the Presidents "austere" budget proposal. C'mon guys, use those research brains to figure this out instead of whining.

wndwmkrApr. 15, 13 6:36 AM

The liberals just love this kind of journalism. I have felt gouged to say the least at the amount of taxes I have to pay so the "U" educators and administrators can live a high life style only because of their "educational status". Yes I know many are worth their money but gouged? Please!!

earneditApr. 15, 13 7:07 AM

bikiester, good comments. I would point out though that some research does lead to income for institutions. For example, research on Lyme disease vaccines at UW resulted in royalties to the college and the U of M developed a new apple variety which is being selectively distributed. So it does happen when there is a product that can be marketed.

elmore1Apr. 15, 13 7:20 AM

Why don't we combine the Mayo and U of M research programs? This will minimize the impact from the reduced funding.

eljeljApr. 15, 13 7:26 AM

This is 3% cut to their overall research budget. There is so much waste in the University's budget that it is unbelievable an article like this is even written. Start looking at tenure and professors salaries before you try and scare people that they will die if this research is not done.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters