Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Science & Technology

- In Progress - About Grants like the Wuhan one.

2020-04-27

The Wuhan grant funding level sounds like an STTR grant.
Like these STTR/SBIR ones

Small Business Innovation Research = SBIR
Small Business Technology Transfer = STTR

The way (SBIR/STTR)'s work is the Primary Investigator (PI) proposes an idea and if it is selected the PI runs with it. Now if the PI is in a US University and does work on the University property then the University GRABS %60 to %80 of the grant for use fees (rent) of their property. This means if the PI has someplace else to do it that can't GRAB the grant and charges a lot less money for USE fees (rent) it's in the PI's interest to do so. Wuhan wouldn't be able to grab the grant so a PI with a good connection to the Wuhan lab could make his money go much much further or pay himself a lot more.

Now as to the grants/monies themselves. Government agencies are required to spend %2 to %4 (depending on agency) of their budget on these research grants. They really don't fit in their agency game plans and most agencies hate them. Seriously! So they really don't pay too much attention where they are done or what for.

This is why I think it's a stupid waste of money! Most of these (ALL) grants would never pass a corporate Return on Investment (ROI) test and don't really generate useful research that is needed. They are merely a hidden subsidy to university administrations with the PI groups actual expenditure on R&D seen as the negative by the universities.

So if the STTR was done in Wuhan the university that PI was associated with would be upset they didn't get the hidden subsidy.

Now for DOD SBIR/STTR grants it's even crazier. A major needs to get promoted so he doesn't get cut. There are 3 main ways for a major to get promoted.
1) Excel in actual combat.
2) Take part in a UN (or like) peacekeeping effort
3) Develop a new weapon (even if it doesn't fit any military plan or need)
Reason #3 is behind most military SBIR/STTR grants.

Posted by:3dc

#5 a PI with a good connection to the Wuhan lab could make his money go much much further or pay himself a lot more.

I'm going out on a limb here and saying option B

Posted by: Bob Grorong1136 2020-04-27 08:41

#4 Fauci signed off on it. That's on the record in ways twitter, gurgle and youtube can't hide.

Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-04-27 08:38

#3 Ike called it!

Posted by: Clem 2020-04-27 07:55

#2 Eisenhower's warning, the one they skip after trashing the "military industrial complex" -

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-04-27 07:27

#1 Now as to the grants/monies themselves. Government agencies are required to spend %2 to %4 (depending on agency) of their budget on these research grants.

Many years ago I was involved in a Defense Intelligence Agency contract involving novel approaches to the systems manipulation of massive data. As I leaned into the actual software development, I discovered that the technology already existed and was in very wide use. I did myself no favors by updating managers and decision makers on the already existing technology. I was unaware of 'grant wagons' at the time. The entire exercise and academic connections soon become rather obvious.

Posted by: Besoeker 2020-04-27 07:10

00:00