No. Never. I would rather sacrifice my intelligence than my integrity!!!
FDA CDC announces $212 million in grants to all 50 states to reduce chronic diseases, tobacco use and probably vaping
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Lol... no need - they go hand in hand. But if there were a choice, I think you chose the right one.
It's probably a little easier when they tell you "hey, we got $212 million if you're one of us" rather than "hey, we hate you and would like to decimate your industry".
EDIT: Disclaimer...
EDIT: I know the period goes inside the quotes, but I refuse to do so given that it is absurd and I am not a conformist.
EDIT:
Well if you have been in the grant writing community then you would know that is simply not true.
What is true is that if you keep up with this stuff, you *know* about the grants. Because if you are looking for $$ for studies, you are looking several times a week for what is available.
I worked on a major federal grant a few years ago, for millions of dollars, so I do know how the application and announcement process works.
The part where you can be partly right is that, once you have written a successful grant, other grantors are more willing to look over your next grants. There is an extensive review process for any grant, a large group of people sit and evaluate your work, intentions, etc.
So, basically, if anyone is interested in writing a grant for an ecig study, I suggest you contact a non-profit or some larger org who is willing to allow you to write under their auspices, and they may even give you some help in the form of partner writers, secretary, printers, mailing machines, etc.
The federal grant we worked on, we spend over a year looking for just the right grants that would *fit* us. The federal grants are very difficult. Smaller ones, like for spay and neuter, or equipment for a fire department, is much easier because they are usually small amounts of $$ ($5,000-15,000) and given out by independents. I got one going for a wildlife rescue I used to help with, he got $15K for a small surgical table and some sidewalks for the visitors to the center.
Meanwhile, I did not receive an answer to my question, other than a somewhat "defeatist" attitude.......who is writing grants for ecig studies? It doesn't have to be huge, just gotten started.
You can't get a grant unless you seek them out, then write the grant app.
Last edited:
So you don't think that the CDC specifically and purposefully "announced" this directly to "those" whom they want to grant money to?
And that if an application came in from "them" such applications would not be looked at more favorably
Well yes, but that was just my opinion, and I can't speak for anyone else who did not take the time to answer.
And if my opinion is keeping anyone from monitoring grant opportunities and applying for those grants, then that would be my bad.
But I suspect that nobody who is motivated to apply for such grants would pay any attention to my opinion, so I'm not sure my "defeatist" attitude is a hindrance.
Having said all that, I commend and applaud anyone who has the wherewithal to undertake such efforts.
And I would be glad to encourage them in those efforts.
Have you contacted CASAA or SFATA to lend your expertise in the hopes of landing such grants?
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Anyone who doubts that these grants will be used for illegal lobbying for tobacco use and vaping bans should read the CDC guidelines for these grants
CDC - Chronic Disease - Funding Opportunities Announcements
2. “Awardees will use public health strategies to reduce tobacco use and exposure”
3. “They will use public health strategies to reduce tobacco use and exposure”
4. “Awardees will work with smaller communities and those with limited public health capacity to reduce tobacco use and exposure”
5. “Awardees will use effective community-chosen and culturally adapted public health interventions to … Reduce commercial tobacco use and exposure.”
And according to
$211 Million in Community Prevention Grants go to 193 Organizations in Every State -- WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
the CDC grants will be used for (among other things)
“Recipients will expand access to tobacco-free environments”
“by implementing culturally adapted community policies, systems and environment improvements to curb tobacco use”
The way this process worked is that CDC issued an RFA (Request for Applications) for the grants that included the grant recipient's requirements (cited above). Then the state/local health agencies and other groups submitted their grant applications to the CDC, and the CDC announced the winners (which included many agencies and groups that unlawfully spent previous CDC grants to lobby for tobacco use and vaping bans).
Please note that CDC doesn't fund many research grants (and none of these grants are research grants).
Rather, the NIH and FDA are funding e-cig research grants, but the vast majority of the folks NIH and FDA have funded for e-cig research are those who misrepresent their research findings to demonize e-cigs, and those who lobby for vaping bans, FDA regulations, etc.
CDC - Chronic Disease - Funding Opportunities Announcements
2. “Awardees will use public health strategies to reduce tobacco use and exposure”
3. “They will use public health strategies to reduce tobacco use and exposure”
4. “Awardees will work with smaller communities and those with limited public health capacity to reduce tobacco use and exposure”
5. “Awardees will use effective community-chosen and culturally adapted public health interventions to … Reduce commercial tobacco use and exposure.”
And according to
$211 Million in Community Prevention Grants go to 193 Organizations in Every State -- WASHINGTON, Sept. 25, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
the CDC grants will be used for (among other things)
“Recipients will expand access to tobacco-free environments”
“by implementing culturally adapted community policies, systems and environment improvements to curb tobacco use”
The way this process worked is that CDC issued an RFA (Request for Applications) for the grants that included the grant recipient's requirements (cited above). Then the state/local health agencies and other groups submitted their grant applications to the CDC, and the CDC announced the winners (which included many agencies and groups that unlawfully spent previous CDC grants to lobby for tobacco use and vaping bans).
Please note that CDC doesn't fund many research grants (and none of these grants are research grants).
Rather, the NIH and FDA are funding e-cig research grants, but the vast majority of the folks NIH and FDA have funded for e-cig research are those who misrepresent their research findings to demonize e-cigs, and those who lobby for vaping bans, FDA regulations, etc.
Last edited:
No. In this case, your suspicions are unsupportable by the facts.
the only "favorable" part is, as I have already explained, in that if you have already written successful grants, grant reviewers will be more familiar with your cause as well as your past works.....that is, if they were favorable impressed w/your writing and work.
Grants are not sent to you, you don't get customized emails telliing you about grants. You have to seek them out. Everyone in certain communities who writes grants does this.....they keep up with the grants that are available in their subject matter.
No.
Ecigs and inhalation risks, chemistry, and environmental testing are not my areas of expertise.
I help write grants for wildlife rescue and rehab, for a non-profit and an associated group of philanthropists in that domain, as well as spay and neuter funding in the rescue community I volunteer in. I also submitted a prototype for a community garden but the community I was writing for is not ready to proceed.
These are areas I know about, can write on, and have studied the needs of those speciic communtiies for many years.
Like any kind of technical writing, you must have a firm grasp on your subject matter....there is a lot to know about your subject matter and people don't usually write grants outside their field of knowledge and expertise. It is a tremendouos amount of work in terms of man-hours to write a grants, esp. for the feds or state....and you have to know what you are talking about.
I would strongly suggest getting your *sea-legs* by seeking funds from a small corp or foundation.
The follow-up is equally burdensome. YOu have to prove that you did what you said you were going to do, fulilled a specific purpose, and show that you used the $$ in a way that most likely caused a measurable outcome.
I got into this by paying for, and attending several semesters of grant writing classes at a university after I got my BA, which was somewhat related and I thought it would come in handy. It was a lot of work and I had to write a lot of "paper" grants for the classes to be reviewed, get a grade, etc. but I did meet a nice network of people.
If this is something you are interested in, then by all means, spend a year or so taking the classes, you never know what kind of causes you may get into in life where good writing skills will come in handy.
Last edited:
Which is why people should consider seeking grant funding from alternative foundations, corporations, and other sources that are not NIH and/or fDA
I'm not sure what you are suggesting here? Throw up hands, write nasty emails, vote for your party?
There are many grantors I would have liked to get on their gravy train, but the bigger names would drown us out. That has never stopped us from getting grants.
You just have to write more of them, because the $$ amounts are not as large as with the feds, etc.It goes w/out saying that you don't apply for grants from grantors who are against your cause. You don't write grants to teach children to fish or hunt........and ask PETA-like organizations to fund it.
So let me ask this: have you put together a team of researchers with bullet proof credentials, and gotten a grant proposal written? Because if nobody has applied "because they won't look at it" then that is just more defeatism.
figure out a way to get $$ for funding ---- when animals are homeless and starving none of the passionate people in the rescue community give up. They have to get the $$ somewhere.......and they manage to keep trying.
FWIW, I only write for 501(c)3
Last edited:
I am slamming my head on the table. Acquiring more knowledge of this sort is painful.
Was thinking of this thread / topic, when heard on the news yesterday that Dems are running ads attacking Pubs over spending cuts and implying that Pubs are to blame for ebola outbreak in the US.
I thought it would be prudent of vapers to let Pubs know how much CDC is spending on connecting vaping usage to smoking problems, especially as it isn't thousands of dollars that we are talking about, but millions.
Perhaps CDC ought to take entire budget from fighting vaping and spend it all on ebola. I wonder how many persons in the general public would say that fighting vaping is more important, for CDC, than fighting ebola. I'm guessing zero.
I thought it would be prudent of vapers to let Pubs know how much CDC is spending on connecting vaping usage to smoking problems, especially as it isn't thousands of dollars that we are talking about, but millions.
Perhaps CDC ought to take entire budget from fighting vaping and spend it all on ebola. I wonder how many persons in the general public would say that fighting vaping is more important, for CDC, than fighting ebola. I'm guessing zero.
Just to clarify... we're not considering the "general public" to include Stanton Glantz, right?
To me, that's a blip on the radar. Unless his successor was vocal about favoring vaping rights, I would think next person would be more of the same. I'd rather see CDC defunded of fighting vaping with the simple political acknowledgement that FDA has that covered and we need you to focus on actual diseases like ebola.
I tend to agree but it won't enhance his record/bio, and while he is just one of many of the same mind, he had a great influence on many issues when he worked for Bloomberg in NY.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
