Jeremy Berg

@jeremymberg

Husband, Father, Grandfather, Datahound, Dog lover, Fan of Celtic music, Former NIGMS director, Former EiC of Science, Stand Up for Science advisor, Shananigator, Pittsburgh, PA NIH Dashboard:

1.375 Folgt27.728 Follower10.678 Posts

YouTube YouTube Bluesky

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir jeremymberg.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· 25d

Tracking progress on non-competitive renewals. This is the percentage of non-competitive renewals issued over time for fiscal year 2026 compared with fiscal year 2024. 1/2

A line graph showing the percentage of non-competitive renewal grants issued over time. The fiscal year 2026 curve is somewhat below that for fiscal year 2024.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 9

Many facets covered including, alas, the likelihood of implementation. But adding your comment is still important. 2/2

The proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance, which are currently open for public comments, have garnered widespread attention from the scientific community, with many professional societies and advocacy groups encouraging members to comment in opposition. But it’s unclear whether such efforts will deter the administration. The new regulations are supposed to apply in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. But the National Science Foundation has already posted changes to its grant policies to align with the OMB proposal.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 8

3/3

“Authorizing mid-award termination of Federal awards, with limited ability to appeal, would inject uncertainty into the Federal award process, especially for awards that span multiple years and phases and make these awards more costly. For example, the termination of clinical trials would leave patients without treatment and could well result in significant scientific and financial losses to both the recipient and the Federal government. This uncertainty could disincentivize scientific researchers and institutions from seeking the Federal financial assistance they need to participate in multi-year, lifesaving trials.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 8

2/3

“Dear Director Vought:

“I write to request that you extend the comment period for the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, and that you meaningfully address stakeholder feedback on the rule and the impacts it is likely to have on small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 7

The last paragraph reads This is a good thing, but please explain to me how this differs from many of the grants and applications that have been "remediated" by NIH_Leadership™ as "DEI". 2/2

"The power of All of Us lies not only in its size but in who is represented; 86% of the participants come from communities historically underrepresented in biomedical research, including older adults, women, people with disabilities, people of all races and ethnicities, and residents of rural and non-metropolitan areas."

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 7

From HHS Secretary Kennedy's weekly newsletter, a shoutout about the NIH "All of Us" program. 1/2

Document entitled "NIH's All of Us Research Programs Boosts Personalized Medicine with World's Largest Health Database"

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 3

4/4

More broadly, Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, and other appointees in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s HHS have raised persistent doubts about Covid vaccines and about vaccine science more generally. What happened at the Grand Rounds appeared to be an attempt to manufacture a scientific debate where, in reality, there isn’t one.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 3

3/4

Kulldorff claimed on the Grand Rounds to have identified “the fatal flaw in test-negative designs.” One of his stated fatal flaws was that you can’t use this approach when cases and controls have different diseases — you shouldn’t use it to compare risk factors for pancreatic versus lung cancer, for example. To which the response of the other panelists — and, I’m imagining, my entire field watching the webcast — was essentially: Of course, and that’s why we don’t.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 3

2/4

In his opening remarks, Jay Bhattacharya (who is leading the agency though not officially acting director), framed the series as a reflection of CDC’s renewed commitment to the principles driving scientific progress: excellence, collaboration, transparency, intellectual honesty, and willingness to engage in thoughtful debate on complex issues. Great!

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jul 2

2/7

Private capital, not NIH direction, produced many of the most celebrated medical advances of the past two decades. Checkpoint inhibitors — drugs that allow the immune system to recognize and attack tumors it ignored — have converted metastatic melanoma, lung and kidney cancer from near-death sentences into more manageable conditions. These drugs reached patients through industry investment. Semaglutide, reshaping obesity treatment for tens of millions through drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy, was developed by Novo Nordisk’s research chemists without NIH direction.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 30

10/16

XII. Findings from a National Longitudinal Study of the RISE Program

NIH programs such as RISE program provide training and support for students from underrepresented groups, as part of ongoing efforts to encourage these students to pursue science careers. Dr. P. Wesley Schultz of California State University in San Marcos summarized several key findings from his NIGMS-funded longitudinal panel study begun in 2005 to track the educational pathways of more than 1,300 minority science students from 45 U.S. campuses. Dr. Schultz noted that the results to date show strong evidence that participating in the RISE program sustains student interest in biomedical science, largely due to research experience and, to a lesser extent, mentorship and financial support.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 30

8/16

These differences remained robust after adjusting for science career intention and GPA, suggesting that the observed effects are unlikely to be explained by preexisting academic preparation or initial aspirations. These gains are consistent with mechanisms emphasized in prior research that are common to both programs: sustained mentorship, authentic research engagement, structured graduate preparation, professional socialization, and direct financial support.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 30

Key findings include: 7/16

Our findings provide rare, prospective evidence that large-scale, targeted undergraduate training programs can move the needle on diversifying the US biomedical research workforce. Following undergraduates for 20 years across two national initiatives, RISE and MARC, we observed substantially higher Ph.D. completion rates among participants than matched controls.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 29

4/4

If this rule change goes forward, science in the US “will stop,” says Colette Delawalla, the founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science. “It won’t exist anymore.”

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 29

3/4

Much of the wording of the new rules is troublingly vague, says Padrón Carney. “You’re essentially putting in the hands of individuals that have yet to be appointed to make those decisions of what it means, what’s gold standard science, what does anti-American mean? What does a good foreign collaborator mean? What does domestic first mean? And what does that mean when it comes to if you have a foreign student in your lab?” According to the latest available data, international scientists make up about 19 percent of all workers in STEM. They make up 43 percent of PhD-level scientists.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 29

2/4

Presidential or congressional priorities can put fingers on the scale to some extent. Congress might make appropriations for Alzheimer’s research or cancer, putting more money toward research in those areas. Meanwhile, a disease going unrecognized can have deadly consequences. “It’s not abstract,” Berg says. He started research at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. “And President Reagan didn’t say anything about it for four years, and there was no concerted effort to deal with it,” he recalls. “That position of politics over science probably killed a lot of people.”

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 28

Happy Pride! 2/2

NYT Strands puzzle from 6/28/26 with a Pride Month theme.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 27

Settling in for an afternoon on musical history and music

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 26

2/3

The rewritten regulations would be "credit negative for entities with high dependence on competitive federal funding because it would materially weaken the reliability of multi-year discretionary funding commitments," Moody's said.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 24

Springer Nature issued this disingenuous statement regarding their decision. I wish they would just honest, but...

Frank Vrancken Peeters, Chief Executive Officer of Springer Nature, said: “Scientific American and Spektrum der Wissenschaft are respected and loved science media brands with a long and valued history, and we are grateful to the teams who have built and sustained them. We have taken the time to ensure these strong brands find the right homes – organisations with the consumer media expertise and ambition to invest in their future.”

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 22

Few details (to put it mildly) and it is very ambitious. 2/3

"For this to be a success, the entire U.S. research enterprise will need to do its part to streamline their processes. HHS will continue working with industry, academic medical centers, contract research organizations, patient groups, health care providers, and other partners to identify barriers to clinical research and remove unnecessary obstacles that slow innovation."

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 22

He concludes with this: 4/9

Thus, in only one place in the world—Wuhan—and at only one time—in Wuhan— was there a proposal to make a virus precisely like the one that caused a pandemic in Wuhan in 2019. If that’s accurate, it would be one of the most astonishing coincidences in the history of the world if this was a result of chance.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 21

Reflecting...

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 17

My quote of the day Thomas Henri Martin [Describing Galileo]

Il déclare que dans tous ces phénomènes il faut mesurer tout ce qui est mesurable, et tâcher de rendre mesurable tout ce qui ne l’est pas directement.

[He declares that, in all such phenomena, one must measure whatever is measurable and endeavor to make measurable whatever is not directly so.]

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 15

My quote of the day Jane Fonda

Instead of drifting along like a leaf in a river, understand who you are and how you come across to people and what kind of an impact you have on the people around you and the community around you and the world, so that when you go out, you can feel you have made a positive difference.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 14

Our community pool opened yesterday after a week-long delay. The pool opened in 1937, built by the Civilian Conservation Corps [CCC] and the Works Progress Administration [WPA] during the Great Depression. It is a huge pool and it was great to get some laps in and watch some kids having fun.

A picture of The North Park swimming pool in Allegheny County, PA.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 14

My quote of the day Woody Guthrie

There's several ways of saying what's on your mind. And in states and counties where it ain't too healthy to talk too loud, speak your mind, or even vote like you want to, folks have found other ways of getting the word around. One of the mainest ways is by singing.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 12

3/3

What you are doing now is an embarrassment to the NIH and to you, personally. What I am proposing would actually stimulate thoughtful fact-based discussion of important topics and could substantially improve public trust in NIH as an honest broker of scientific information related to health.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jeremy M. Berg
Director, NIGMS 2003-2011

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 12

2/3

If you would actually like to achieve the stated goal of providing some serious discussion about topics of public interest and increasing public trust in NIH, I would suggest an alternative strategy. You should end this series and start an alternative that you could call the "Science Not Advocacy Program" or SNAP. Each event would involve a debate between two individuals with different positions based on a specific topic. Using the past topics as examples, you could have paired Lord Ridley with someone like virologist Dr. Angie Rasmussen to discuss the evidence for the origins of SARS-CoV-2, favoring actual scientific evidence over speculation and innuendo. Lifewise, today you could have paired Mr. Taubes with nutrition scientist Dr. Kevin Hall, formerly a leading scientist in the NIDDK intramural program before he retired after he felt his work was being censored by HHS. Surely, he qualifies as someone whose "freedom" has been infringed upon as much as Lord Ridley and Mr. Taubes.

Jeremy Berg@jeremymberg· Jun 12

I wrote to Director Bhattacharya with an idea about how to convert these "scientific freedom" lectures into something potentially useful. 1/3