Jeremy Berg

There really wasn't such a thing as exception pay. No payline. Everything in play. Allocations were driven by the number of proposals under consideration for each division and branch.

There may have been some funds available beyond these allocations, but this was done without my involvement.

a man in a blue shirt and tie is sitting at a desk and says fair enough ALT: a man in a blue shirt and tie is sitting at a desk and says fair enough

So that's what my experience ways. It was fairly transparent and program officers who all had a stake in the overall outcome had a chance to contribute to the decision making.

I was never aware of any "I'll support yours if you support mine" dealmaking or other types of corruption.

8/8

After the meeting, the lead (usually the division director (with help from the branch chief) would put together a paylist. At his point, budgets were examined more closely since the total on the paylist had to match the allocation from the budget office and the extramural activities office.

7/8

As the number on the list approached the total number likely to be recommended for funding (typically ~75%), each application was presented and discussed. These discussions tended to be rich and could be spirited as each program officer had opinions and also had competing favorites.

6/8

The top scoring applications were generally accepted as components of the paylist.

However, program officers could present any applications where they had concerns or wanted input. Such concerns were often based on issues that had arisen at Advisory Council meetings.

5/8

The relevant group (usually a branch but sometimes a division or group involved with a more specialized initiative) would meet.

The group would know approximately how much money they had to invest and, therefore, approximately how many grants they would be able to recommend for funding.

4/8

For example, I don't know much about what ended up in the official grant file in terms of documentation.

However, I was involved in some (but not all) "paylist meetings" where funding recommendations were actually developed.

3/8

First, some disclaimers:

As institute director, I was less involved with day-to-day processes that program officers and division directors who actually had to do the work so my knowledge is incomplete.

2/8

So, let me share the NIGMS processes from my time.

1/8

Right back at you!

An Australian cattle dog with her head laying on a man's lap next to his laptop computer/

Petunia, my laptop assistant this morning...

Lets start the week with otters chasing a butterfly.

My quote of the day

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.

John F. Kennedy

Carrie Fisher was the blueprint.
Protect your people. Call out the predators.
#RESIST

Niblings enjoy their Swifty style friendship bracelets.

You keep me going, #BethesdaDeclaration. Thank you, @jeremymberg.bsky.social .
#NIHStrong #FEDStrong #defendresearch #defenddata

I will share how things worked when I was at NIGMS back in the day.

I am confident in varies across institutes (as almost everything does).

Smart. Now if someone standing in for Halligan (who is found to have been improperly appointed) tries to re-indict Comey they have to explain why the statute of limitations has not run.

Judge Currie holds Halligan's appointment is invalid, dismisses the cases against Comey and James, both without prejudice. I'll be posting a detailed You Tube on it shortly.

A page about Principles of Bioinorganic Chemistry by Stephen J. Lippard and Jeremy Berg

I have diversified since graduate school and early in my career, but I am definitely a bioinorganic chemist. Went from Mo to Zn.

I wrote a book with Steve Lippard, published in 1994, that is still in print.

Revising it is on my to-do list, but this has been a more complicated year than I imagined.

A lot of the transformational advances in HIV science — Truvada PrEP, Treatment as prevention (HPTN 052), U=U, lenacapavir PrEP etc. happened under Carl's watch. A kind and generous person to boot. Huge loss.

The alternative interpretation that I am publishing was not initially obvious, but is consistent with all of the data that I know of, even more so that my original interpretation beyond the published key result.

2/2

In my case, there were 2 interpretations of a key result and I did not have conclusive evidence, but favored one. The other was shown to be correct.

The embarrassing part is that this was published in 1999, but I had changed fields and did not find out until I found it by accident in 2024.

1/2

Translation from Swedish to English

Director Bhattacharya: As a scientist, when you see negative excess deaths starting during a serious disease outbreak, does that cause you to question the assumptions of your model?

An X post from NIH Director Bhattacharya showing substantial negative excess deaths in Sweden from 2000 to 2004.

Direktör Bhattacharya: Som forskare, när du ser negativa överdödsfall som börjar under ett allvarligt sjukdomsutbrott, får det dig att ifrågasätta antagandena i din modell?

1/2

He wasn't terminated, just detailed to another position. He has plenty of integrity, but I am not sure he has any cause for action.

Manuscript Number: JINORGBIO-D-25-00839R1 Article Title: A New Interpretation for Oxygen Atom-Transfer Reactions for the Berg-Holm Oxo-Molybdenum Enzyme Model: Evidence for a Highly Active Oxygen Atom Transfer Acceptor   Dear Jeremy, I have examined your revised manuscript after having received positive responses from the consulted reviewers, and I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. Elsevier will send you a copyright transfer form when they acknowledge receipt of your manuscript at the production office.

Starting off the morning with some good news.

This is the paper correcting a key point of interpretation in my dissertation work from 1984 (including in the titles of some of the papers). Last December, I discovered a paper published years ago that showed I was wrong.

Glad to be getting this out.

As @gregggonsalves.bsky.social said, here is the main winner in the forced departure of Carl Dieffenbach.

My quote of the day

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

As someone who has worked in HIV for 35+ years, I can tell you Carl is a consummate scientific leader. We’ve been lucky to have him at head of DAIDS. The only thing that wins here is the virus.