Banned from WP

[DirtDawg]

Sorry to break it to ya, folks, but that's not how grant money works. You make a proposal as to how the money will be allocated, the organization either awards you a grant or doesn't. If you get the grant, you spend it as you'd originally proposed. That's as far as the selling of souls go.

If you want to do some good in this world, generally you need money in order to do so. I can't do my research without funding, and sadly there aren't enough rich philanthropists in the world knocking at my door. You've gotta go to SOME organization to apply for money. I'll also be applying to the NIH. But since my CV is mostly made up of autism-based research, Autism Speaks is the more likely of the predoc fellowships I could attain.

I'm the one who decides what goes into my application, what my dissertation will be, etc., not Autism Speaks. They either accept it or reject it. If they accept it, I get their money to support the work.

I'm not talking about Alex here, but for myself I know that research has shown me that the philosophical debates that the autism fora are rife with are really far too black and white to be anything but a "moral highground" from which to fall off of.

Life is more real than these fora, I'm sorry. Although I'm not trying to debase the communities that have been built online and which are substantially important; they've been my bedrock through a number of hard times. But when it comes to research and business, there are a lot of compromises. I didn't make the game, but that's how it's played if you wish to achieve your goals. My goals are to come to a better understanding of what makes up autism(s) and how, genetically and environmentally, it develops. It's not to eradicate, it's to explain.

What I have a problem with is the ND and parental communities who are CONSTANTLY at war with each other and are too damned blind to see that, in essence, they're really fighting for the SAME DAMNED THING. They just don't happen to agree on how to go about achieving it. So rather than try to cooperate and listen, they're at each others' throats making worse problems than either had before.

So Alex got some money. He's got it from Autism Speaks. He's gonna make some little films about the Spectrum that I'm sure Wrongplanet will watch and probably enjoy. Autism Speaks no doubt had a certain portion of funding that was allocated to go to the community or some such. Alex and Cubby applied for money, John helped them get it. Nepotism, yeah. But that's about it.

Choose your battles. Energy is better spent doing things than bickering. Nobody will change their minds anyways.

I am pleased to find the first post of yours that I have ever seen that sparks of intelligence instead of spank.


My worry is about where some of the funding goes.

I fear that they will eventually be reducing the "numbers of autistics"  in the same way that has happened for the Down's Syndrome community; Identify the "syndrome" before birth and abort the child.

This fixes everything, eh?

[The_Chosen_One]

here's Alex's Facefuck page:

http://www.facebook.com/alexplank1

Which one of you is Rod Craven?

Why? 

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

Hopefully they're that generous, but I'm concerned they'll play dirty tricks with awarding grants, considering their reputation.

For instance, they could at first grant you a small amount of money with almost no conditions except what you propose. However when you need another grant, they might say, "We're sorry, but we cannot accept your proposal and award your grant; unless you change a few things in it, then we'll award it". Eventually they'll force more control over your research to a point where they practically manipulate it to their interests. If you refuse, it's simple, your research stops due to insufficient funds. This is why having them fund your research with isn't good news long term. They'll hold power over you when it comes to continued funding. If this is a one-time grant, that won't be a problem, but if it's ongoing research and requires constant funding, this problem may arise eventually.

This of course, would be an non-issue if their were a larger market of people/organisations readily awarding grants. Because if one tries to play dirty, you simply find someone else to fund you.

Grants don't work like that thankfully. There is an application process, you write up your proposal, send it in, a committee reviews it, denies it or accepts it, and if it's accepted you get funded and have to allocate the money as you said you would within the grant proposal. Your grant history often plays a role in what grants you are eligible to receive in future. For instance, if a committee reviews your grant but feels you have too many grants at the current time (i.e., "too much money") they will be more inclined to reject it. If you are a well-known researcher and have applied for grants before through a given organization-- or, hell, sometimes just if you're a well-known researcher!-- usually there is a better chance of receiving further grants.

But the committee either accepts or rejects a grant as is. It isn't the same thing as a publication where a reviewer or editor can come back to you and say "I will give my approval if you alter this, this, and this."

It's pretty straightforward and there's not much wiggle room for dishonesty or manipulation on either party's part.

[Parts]

My wife took a whole coarse when getting her Master's on grant writing it isn't easy

[P7PSP]

My wife took a whole coarse when getting her Master's on grant writing it isn't easy

I had no idea one could get a Masters Degree in grant writing, sounds like a cool job. 

[Osensitive1]

Read it as: took a whole course on a grant. Writing isn't easy.

[P7PSP]

I like my interpretation better. 

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

Hopefully they're that generous, but I'm concerned they'll play dirty tricks with awarding grants, considering their reputation.

For instance, they could at first grant you a small amount of money with almost no conditions except what you propose. However when you need another grant, they might say, "We're sorry, but we cannot accept your proposal and award your grant; unless you change a few things in it, then we'll award it". Eventually they'll force more control over your research to a point where they practically manipulate it to their interests. If you refuse, it's simple, your research stops due to insufficient funds. This is why having them fund your research with isn't good news long term. They'll hold power over you when it comes to continued funding. If this is a one-time grant, that won't be a problem, but if it's ongoing research and requires constant funding, this problem may arise eventually.

This of course, would be an non-issue if their were a larger market of people/organisations readily awarding grants. Because if one tries to play dirty, you simply find someone else to fund you.

Grants don't work like that thankfully. There is an application process, you write up your proposal, send it in, a committee reviews it, denies it or accepts it, and if it's accepted you get funded and have to allocate the money as you said you would within the grant proposal. Your grant history often plays a role in what grants you are eligible to receive in future. For instance, if a committee reviews your grant but feels you have too many grants at the current time (i.e., "too much money") they will be more inclined to reject it. If you are a well-known researcher and have applied for grants before through a given organization-- or, hell, sometimes just if you're a well-known researcher!-- usually there is a better chance of receiving further grants.

But the committee either accepts or rejects a grant as is. It isn't the same thing as a publication where a reviewer or editor can come back to you and say "I will give my approval if you alter this, this, and this."

It's pretty straightforward and there's not much wiggle room for dishonesty or manipulation on either party's part.

In that case, I feel more confident you won't be screwed over and manipulated by them. That was my only concern.

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

Yeah, they either accept or decline the grant as is.

[DukeNukem]

Who says I sucked Alex Plank's schlong?

[The_Chosen_One]

Who says I sucked Alex Plank's schlong?

Alex did on Facebook.

[RageBeoulve]

Well judging by the fact that I could saw wood with your nasty teeth, alex would no longer have a shlong.

The game.

[Squidusa]

Well judging by the fact that I could saw wood with your nasty teeth, alex would no longer have a shlong.

The game.

 

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

PROTIP: Problem with teeth? Punch all those fuckers out and then enjoy your blowjob.

[RageBeoulve]

One sec applying Oldspice...  Pa Pa Pa Pa- Pa POWAH!

Now cmere duke...  *makes fist*