The Australian Open prepares for the worst: it may not hold the tournament until 2022

first_imgThe days move and the speeches transfer away from optimism. If in early April we commented that the Australian Open He was considering his subsequent version of 2021 behind closed doorways, now a number of situations are additionally on the desk which can be, if potential, even worse.Craig Tiley, CEO of Tennis Australia and tournament director, defined this week the completely different prospects that the first main of the calendar, together with the most catastrophic: “Being the first to renew the competitors is one in every of the situations that we deal with. One other state of affairs is to return with out an viewers, like the AFL and the NRL. One other state of affairs is to play in one other period of 12 months probably and the final state of affairs can be the worst: that there isn’t a Australian Open until 2022. We have now to organize for all the things, “confessed Tiley in the newspaper. The Age. Pandemic insurance coverageTowards this background, does the Australian Open have a degree in favor? Happily, the reply is sure. That for the second is the solely Grand Slam of the course that has been held It has allowed him to maintain a small cheap mattress for the subsequent version. “We have now to construct a monetary mannequin for all potential situations. The excellent news is that we’re internet hosting the tournament this 12 months, so now we have some ‘money’, However that runs out rapidly if we don’t have an earnings, “Tiley defined.To mitigate the harm that COVID-19 may trigger in the tournament over the future, Tiley himself defined that Tennis Australia group has pandemic insurance coverage (as in the case of Wimbledon), though this ends subsequent July: “After Wimbledon, we had been in all probability one in every of the few sports activities organizations that had pandemic insurance coverage. We had full insurance coverage and pandemic insurance coverage. However in July of this 12 months it expires. However now we’re in talks with the similar insurer for the future. “Uncertainty solely makes its manner onto the tennis planet …last_img read more

Up to 1000 NIH Investigators Dropped Out Last Year

first_imgHas the cull begun? New data show that after remaining more or less steady for a decade, the number of investigators with National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding dropped sharply last year by at least 500 researchers and as many as 1000. Although not a big surprise—it came the same year that NIH’s budget took a 5% cut—the decline suggests that a long-anticipated contraction in the number of labs supported by NIH may have finally begun.Although NIH publicizes the number of grants it funds each year, it does not routinely disclose the number of principal investigators—the leaders of the labs these grants support. But in response to a request from ScienceInsider, NIH shared these data for two sets of grants: research project grants (RPGs), which include all research grants, and R01 equivalents, a slightly smaller category that includes the bread-and-butter R01 grants that support most independent labs.These data show that despite minimal budget growth at NIH since a 5-year doubling ended in 2003, the number of investigators with R01-equivalent grants has held steady at about 22,000. (That number does not necessarily include researchers who received funding from a $10 billion, one-time spending boost that NIH got as a result of stimulus programs designed to combat the recession.)Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)But the numbers fell sharply last year when NIH’s budget plummeted $1.55 billion due to sequestration. As NIH has reported, new R01-equivalent awards fell by 534. The new data show that the number of investigators with these awards dropped in sync by 605, from 22,116 to 21,511 (raw data here). The decline for RPGs was 511. The loss was a staggering 1001 when all R grants are tallied, according to an analysis by American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology President Jeremy Berg, a former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), now at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. (Berg’s data include smaller grants such as R21s but not large ones such as P01s.)Regardless of which data you go with (Berg advised ScienceInsider to stick with the figures from NIH), the number of investigators fell by hundreds last year, or by 2.7% for R01 equivalents or 3.8% using Berg’s R grant data. That suggests that after years of propping up grant numbers by squeezing the size of existing grants, the agency could not avoid a tumble last year.These labs aren’t all necessarily shutting down. They could have bridge funding from their institution or be “surviving by other means,” such as foundation support, Berg says. Moreover, NIH’s budget rose 3.5% this year, so the number of investigators could rebound somewhat in 2014 or later years, as DrugMonkey notes.But the drop in investigators does suggest some contraction in labs. If so, Berg asks, “is this a wise culling of the herd, or is this a destructive loss of productive investigators and talent?” Some of the grants are probably R01s that the investigator has held for decades, Berg says. But others “are probably people in the prime of their careers.”NIH has been thinking about ways to avoid relatively random culling of experienced lab chiefs. One idea is to offer willing senior scientists enough funding to wind down their labs over a few years. That might encourage more to retire and free up money for younger scientists. It’s “a potentially reasonable idea,” Berg says.He thinks NIH should also come clean about a policy it put in place in 2012 to spread its money further—reviewers give extra scrutiny to applications from investigators who already receive more than $1 million in direct support from NIH. NIH has not revealed whether the policy has significantly affected grant decisions, Berg notes. And he’s concerned that most institutes look only at the funding that well-funded grantees receive from NIH, and not the total including other sources. (An exception is NIGMS, which looks at the whole picture.) For instance, scientists supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which lavishes their investigators with funding, usually have grants from NIH as well, Berg recently found.last_img read more