Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Stunned as Medical Non-Profit Group Abruptly Ends Research Grants (nature.com)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

A major US non-profit group focused on improving child health has abruptly terminated US$3 million in research grants -- leaving nearly 40 scientists confused, angry and scrambling to secure new funding. From a report: On 24 July, 37 grant recipients received an e-mail from the March of Dimes Foundation in New York City informing them that their 3-year grants had been cut off, retroactively, starting on 30 June. Many of the researchers were only a year into their projects, and had had just enough time to hire and train staff, purchase supplies and generate preliminary results. Now, several say that they might need to lay off employees, euthanize lab animals and shelve their research projects if they cannot find other funding -- fast. The March of Dimes, which is supported largely by individual donations, made the decision to revoke the grants because of a budget shortfall, says Kelle Moley, the group's chief scientific officer. "I know this is harsh news," Moley says. "As a former grantee, this would be devastating to me as well." That is small consolation to many researchers whom Nature spoke to.

27 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. this is GOOD NEWS! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously somebody has discovered a cure for polio and they're about the break the news. We don't need the March of Dimes any more!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:this is GOOD NEWS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      *Susan G Komen Foundation, a for-profit group researching how to bilk the public out of more money and trademark the color pink. Sometimes, they talk about breast cancer, too.

  2. How about trimming the top level MOD? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In this somewhat old post on how MOD spends money, it spent $96 million on salaries and benefits. If they really needed to save $3 million, why could that money not have come from there?

    Salary and related expenses are 37% of every dollar MOD gets as a donation...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Salary and related expenses are 37% of every dollar MOD gets as a donation...

      In my opinion that is way too high operating expense to be considered non profit. I would personally clamp it to 15% max or you lose non-profit status. But mainly I feel this way because so many 'non profit charities' are pure scum, only in it to make money.

    2. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by xfade551 · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, these guys have sent me mailers on around 5 different occasions with an actual dime attached asking for donations (I have not donated to them before, but they probably picked up my name and address from one or another multi-org cheritable donation campaigns I have donated through). $0.10 given out to huge numbers of people adds up fast! This has to be the financially stupidest way possible to try to get to new donations.

    3. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to charitynavigtor, 75.5% of their money is spent on program, 10.7% is 'administrative', and 13.6% is on fundraising (it costs them $0.15 to raise $1).

    4. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by Fencepost · · Score: 2

      Attaching money is a little old-fashioned, but I suspect is still quite effective and a dime is about the only thing they could do.

      Basically what they're paying for with that ("I can feel a coin through the envelope") dime is a bit more of your attention. If you open the envelope and glance at the materials inside rather than just throwing it in the trash unopened, the dime worked and was probably well worth it.

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    5. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      That would be high if it were true. Fortunately, it is not. Their actual 'salary and benefits' is 10.7% (the CEOs salary is 0.29%).

    6. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Plus 13% fundraising expenses. Overhead is 25% total based on current numbers.

      On the plus side, they have reduced their operating overhead.

      https://www.charitynavigator.o...

    7. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      And politically, you get to act like you are doing something extra special. Plus most people don't know that some non-profits pay their executive staff fortunes so they get to set a noble perception that they are sacrificing their wage by avoiding the private sector.

    8. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      It costs MOD $0.15 to raise $1. So every one of those dimes sent out gets them 67 cents in return. It is only 'financially stupidest' if every other method of fundraising nets you more than 67 cents for every dime spent. What would all those superior methods be?

    9. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right, but the OP didn't say 37% was spent in 'non program expenses', he said 37% was 'salary and benefits', which is pure BS.

    10. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not arguing if they deserve the wage. I'm talking about the politician spouses that talk the big talk about forgoing the private sector to work in the public sector because of how much they care.

      I remember Michelle Obama talking about how she rejected private sector jobs to work in the public sector and how she did that because she cared about people more than money.

      That said, she was making over 300 grand annually in the public sector.

      https://www.factcheck.org/2009...

    11. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Charity Navigator rates the March of Dimes at 2 out of 5 stars, and 1 out of 5 on the financial scale.
      Their program expenses, administrative expenses, fundraising expenses, and fundraising efficiency are all pretty good. But they basically ran out of money. Liability to assets should be 10% but it is 113%!!! I can't tell what they did wrong, other than paying their CEO a half a million dollars a year. That wouldn't be unreasonable if that CEO brought in millions of more dollars than a CEO who made $100k/year, but clearly something was mismanaged if it got to this point.

    12. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Versus $500 grand in the private sector?

      I remember way back in high school when dinosaurs roamed the earth, we had a local state legislators assistant give us a talk. When asked he told us the salary he made, and we thought it was huge (being naive high schoolers of course). Then he added that this was a significant pay cut from his older job, and it had most students rethinking things.

      Which still leaves a question. If a rich guy takes a pay cut do we still consider him an asshole or hypocrite because he's still rich? How much of a paycut is necessary before we're allowed to say that this is a good guy? I also think it's very hypocritical that someone who gives no money to charity will accuse a billionaire who gives enormous amount of money to a charity of having ulterior motives.

      I think a lot of it comes down to human nature, and thinking that anyone making more money than you must be an asshole.

    13. Re:How about trimming the top level MOD? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I do like getting the postage stamps attached from various charities. It makes it easier to mail back the donation. It is more expensive than a business reply mail though, but since so many charities do this I suspect having an actual stamp results in more donations. Perhaps people feel more guilty having the stamp and feel every so slightly compelled to donate. But if these expenses do not result in higher donations you can be sure that the charities would stop doing it.

  3. Re:Can they monetize their so-called "research"? by DickBreath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No handouts from the government. The government now realizes that we have no use for science. Nor for art.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  4. This is not normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The abruptness suggests that March of Dimes staff is incompetent and couldn't see the shortfall coming, that some major funding source suddenly cut them off, or maybe some insider embezzled a bunch of money. In any case, this doesn't look like a typical, "Gee, we've been having some difficulties raising money" scenario.

  5. Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are definitely some bad religious ones, but the Fear of the Lord tends to sharpen the minds of the organizations especially if they're more at the regional level where there are not enough fiefdom-building opportunities.

    If you're a giver who wants to help babies--the MOD's ostensible justification for existence--go find the most orthodox church in your area. You know, the one where they believe abortion is straight up murder. Ask the head pastor or the priest who they would recommend you send your money to support. I can almost guarantee you that the percentage that will go to poor moms and babies will be significantly higher than anything sent to the MOD.

    1. Re:Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by mykepredko · · Score: 2

      I'd be very careful using such a simplistic approach.

      Wouldn't the best way of selecting a charity, if you wanted to maximize where your dollars are going to, is by looking at the organization's tax filings and see where the money actually goes?

      --
      Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    2. Re:Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're a giver who wants to help babies--the MOD's ostensible justification for existence--go find the most orthodox church in your area. You know, the one where they believe abortion is straight up murder.

      I like it very much how modern day Christians take their notion of what is murder or not from Aristotle, the pagan philosopher who first stated souls are the form of the body, therefore fetuses have souls since conception, therefore abortion is murder, rather than from the Bible, which clearly states the soul enters the body when the person first breathes and that abortion is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be paid to the would be father.

      Being a pagan myself, I heartily approve of taking a pagan Philosopher's opinions more seriously than whatever is in the Biblical myths. But Aristotle wouldn't be my first choice. His ideas about the soul are very off. Plotinus and Proclus' are better. Be as it may, a paganized Christianity is better than a non-paganized one, and therefore kudos on ignoring what the Bible say on the matter, even though in this case I myself agree with the Bible! (y)

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    3. Re:Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fear of the Lord tends to sharpen the minds...

      This is the type of simplistic thinking that makes people good targets for fraudsters. Take Utah for example. Big time fraud goes on there because the people believe someone in church in a suit would never defraud them. God is on their side.

      I can almost guarantee you that the percentage that will go to poor moms and babies will be significantly higher than anything sent to the MOD.

      I can almost guarantee that you pulled that out of your ass.

    4. Re:Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like it very much how modern day Christians take their notion of what is murder or not from Aristotle

      I like it very much when apparent atheistts try to speak for all Christians. In other words, you're making it up.

      which clearly states the soul enters the body when the person first breathes

      You're good at taking things out of context. Remember that the context of that verse is the creation of the first human being out of clay. Prior to life being breathed into it, the clay was not human. Clay has no soul, and thus the soul could ONLY enter it when it became human.

      Every baby since that time has been different. A description of how the first human was created is not a description of how every other human has been created. The fact that the material was clay before the first human became so does not mean that every baby since then is clay until it is born.

      and that abortion is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine to be paid to the would be father.

      You stopped at the first verse of that group. The second clearly says "a life for a life". If taking the "fruit of the woman" followed by "mischief" requires a "life for a life", then clearly the "fruit of the woman" is a "life." Otherwise it would say "a life for a bit of mischief and a blob of clay."

      Being a pagan myself, I heartily approve of taking a pagan Philosopher's opinions more seriously than whatever is in the Biblical myths.

      You know, "philosophy" covers a wide range of thought, and the fact that both the "bible myth" and a pagan philosopher say an unborn child is a life isn't earth shattering news. Sometimes people of vastly different belief systems and backgrounds come to the same truths despite the different journey. You know, maybe some things are just that obvious.

      Be as it may, a paganized Christianity is better than a non-paganized one

      I think you meant to say that one of your imagined versions of Christianity is better than another one of your imagined versions. I agree.

      even though in this case I myself agree with the Bible!

      You agree with the misinterpretation you've created. Not earth shattering news, either. Your bias has you creating the misinterpretation and ignoring the context, and your bias naturally has you agreeing with what you created.

    5. Re:Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I like it very much when apparent atheistts try to speak for all Christians. In other words, you're making it up.

      Not at all. And I'm not an Atheist, I'm a pagan. :-)

      You're good at taking things out of context.

      No. The Hebrew word we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "nephesh" for soul, and "ruash" and "neshamah" for spirit, the three of which mean "breathe". Those are the words used in the Old Testament. Similarly, the Greek words used in the New Testament that we translate as "soul" and "spirit" are "psuche" for soul, and "pnoe" and "pneuma" for spirit, the three of which also mean "breathe".

      The meaning all thorough the Bible is that soul/spirit are connected to a breathing body. That's the criteria. And anything that isn't breathing has no soul. Including fetuses.

      You stopped at the first verse of that group.

      No, I didn't. Those verses refer to the death of the would-be mother and/or of the would-be father. The miscarriage caused by the assailant is punished by a fine. It's considered an aggression against the mother, and a loss of property against the father. Search any Biblical dictionary and you'll see this explained in excruciating details.

      You agree with the misinterpretation you've created.

      No, I agree with the traditional understanding of this topic in multiple cultures. Some take a more careful approach and suggest temperance when it comes to abortion, saying it's better to avoid it than to indulge in it, but very few believed mere conception entailed soul-body linking. In fact, even American evangelicals only began believing this during the 1970's. Before that it was considered by most as a specifically Catholic (and Orthodox) belief, not a proper, general Christian one.

      And, guess what? Evangelicals were the correct ones in that debate. Were. Now they aren't anymore.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re:Why I don't give to secular "aid" organizations by Xylantiel · · Score: 2

      Didn't Jesus tell us to all get past that eye for an eye stuff? The problem is that "anti-abortion" in the US just means "no safe abortions for poor people". "Upstanding" rich white people will just continue to fly their daughters to Mexico to get abortions while voting for con-artist politicians that will destroy the nation with corruption but appoint judges willing to force poor women to risk their lives to not have a baby that they have no means or intention to support.

  6. dimes for some by guygo · · Score: 3, Informative

    March of Dimes for you, March of Millions fro the CEO and cronies.

  7. Re:You need to fix your numbers too by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

    Would it kill you that much to read the charitynavigator site a bit?

    Assuming the "Research and Medical Support" is what's been cut (since they cut research grants) then $3M in cuts is nearly 12% of that sector's budget. Is it *NOT* immediately obvious that money is completely liquid across the entire organization. For example, it can't be assumed that they can simply cut $3M from administration and transfer that cash to the research department.

    It's also worth considering that they're looking at a ~$12M budget shortfall overall, so the other functions are probably taking a cut as well.
    =Smidge=