Critics say? Is this the New York Times?

Towering, like a giant albatross…

Important to note that Judge Young in his APHA vs NIH ruling explained that “Even if the regulation applied as a contractual term, whether the ‘award no longer effectuates the programs goals or agency priorities’ can still be challenged under the APA where the underlying reasons violate the APA.”

The aphorism needs the addendum “and the rest useless”

Avoiding scientific questions out of fear of how the worst of society will react is corrosive to science. The solution is careful, rigorous work that justifies the importance of the questions and acknowledges the implications and limitations of findings with a hefty dose of intellectual humility.

But this is a fool’s errand. No matter what scientists do, whether avoiding research topics or not publishing politically or socially sensitive findings, ideologues will never be satisfied. They’ll twist findings regardless of their outcome or decry the lack of research as censorship.

There’s a lot of uncertainty for the NIH right now in terms of its future budget and organization, but we hope this new aDMG program can come to fruition. 🦴🧬🌍

Funding opportunities will be posted on grants.gov at a future date.

In essence, we’d like the program to address the geographic sampling bias and genome coverage bias that currently exists for aDNA but in a manner that’s ethical, equitable, and non-extractive.

5. Support individual research projects using aDNA data to address the biology, epidemiology, and/or evolution of disease and health-related traits.

3. Generate and harmonize high-quality, whole-genome aDNA data from new and existing sources sampling global genetic diversity.

4. Create a centralized, federated data resource.