Craig Kaplan

@triggerloop.bsky.social

3921 Followers 791 Following

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Pittsburgh. RNA polymerase II mechanism, classic films, #classiccountdown once in awhile

Agnes Moorehead as Madge Rapf in Dark Passage looking through ornate small window in door
Tall art deco building with washed out backdrop due to wildfire smoke in Pittsburgh
Bison Attacks Tourist at Yellowstone National Park, Tossing Him Into the Air
Me: Time for the Harry Lime speech about Switzerland Group chat: Centuries of peace and prosperity produces 220 goalless minutes.
Violin plots of NIGMS award sizes in FY26. R01s are widely spread due to many being multiyear funded. R35s more narrowly spread.
Violin plots of total cost in US dollars for FY26 awarded R01 grants from NIGMS (left) or R01 grants from NIGMS (right). The plot on right is much more focused around ~400K. The plot on left has two major groups of funding.
Histograms of Total Cost for funded R01 grants from NIGMS in FY26 so far (left) and funded R35 grants (right). I know last year there were a number of 2 year R01s that were MYF, allowing people to be eligible for MIRA
Decreasing funding rates at NIGMS for both R35 and R01
The infantry charge was preceded by what Lee hoped would be a powerful and well-concentrated cannonade of the Union center, destroying the Union artillery batteries that could defeat the assault and demoralizing the Union infantry. But a combination of inept artillery leadership and defective equipment doomed the barrage from the beginning. Longstreet's corps artillery chief, Col. Edward Porter Alexander, had effective command of the field; Lee's artillery chief, Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton, played little role other than to obstruct the effective placement of artillery from the other two corps. Despite Alexander's efforts, then, there was insufficient concentration of Confederate fire on the objective.[17]
Lake Solitude with sun obscured by smoke plume from Utah wild fire. Alpine lake with rocky peak behind it and red faint sun above
Dan Bejar
Agnes Moorehead in Dark Passage. A woman’s face is framed in an ornate window/peephole in the middle of a door. Her character is looking out at Humphrey Bogart’s who she doesn’t recognize after plastic surgery to hide his identity
DATES: Comments are due on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Late comments will be considered only to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal must be submitted electronically before the comment closing date to www.regulations.gov. In submitting comments, please search for recent submissions by OMB to find docket OMB-2026-0034, which includes the full text of the proposed revisions and submit comments there. Please provide clarity as to the section of the regulation that each comment is referencing by beginning each comment with the relevant section number in brackets. For example; if the comment is on 2 CFR 200.414, include the following before the comment [200.414]. Public comments received by OMB and Federal agencies will be posted at www.regulations.gov and be a matter of public record. Accordingly, please do not include any confidential business information or personal privacy information in your comments.
ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposes to revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance to improve government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance. OMB is proposing revisions that would improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards across the Federal Government. This includes ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused, activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with law and policy, and recipients are held accountable when they fail to meet relevant standards. The revisions also aim to ensure that basic American principles of equality and equal opportunity are upheld throughout all stages of the award making process and that unlawful discrimination is no longer permitted. Proposed changes also include providing further clarification on the regulatory status of the OMB requirements and on the process for future updates to the government-wide requirements. Finally, OMB also proposes changes to reduce recipient burden. The listed Federal grant-making agencies propose conforming changes to their respective adopting regulations, or, in the case of some agencies and other entities, establishing new adopting regulations or policies. The proposed changes reflect the administration’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and proper oversight for the Federal grantmaking process. The proposed regulations seek to ensure that American tax dollars are ultimately used to serve the needs of the American public. DATES: Comments are due on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Late comments will be considered only to the extent practicable.
Section 200.461 — Publication and printing costs. OMB proposes to revise § 200.461 related to publication and printing costs to make plain language revisions, including removing the word “promotion,” which is not the specific subject of this section. As § 200.421 provides the policy for “advertising and public relations” costs, OMB wants to ensure that the term “promotion” does not create an independent basis for allowing such costs under this section. To extent that advertising and public relations costs are not permitted under § 200.421, that section would govern. Furthermore, OMB is revising the section to make publication costs unallowable unless such costs are expressly required by statute or approved in advance by the Federal agency on a case-by-case basis. This change reflects OMB’s objective to strengthen stewardship of Federal funds and ensure that Federal financial assistance is directed toward achieving the programmatic objectives of the award. Publication costs are not inherently necessary to carry out the core programmatic objectives of most Federal awards. In many cases, such activities are discretionary, vary widely in scope and costs, and may serve institutional, professional, or reputational interests rather than the specific objectives of the Federal program. Absent statutory authority or award-specific requirement, allowing publication costs as a charge to Federal awards creates inconsistent charging practices and increases the risk that Federal funds are used for activities that are ancillary to program performance. By limiting allowability to circumstances in which publication is required by statute or explicitly incorporated into the award, this change would ensure that such costs are incurred only when they are directly tied to a statutory or programmatic requirement.
Section 200.339 — Remedies for noncompliance. OMB proposes to add a new paragraph to § 200.339 to clarify that, if applicable and consistent with law, a Federal agency may, at its discretion, cooperate with individuals or organizations in pursuing their own private cause of action or remedies. This addition would not impose an affirmative duty on agencies to assist in private litigation. The proposed revision is only intended to affirm that agencies may, at their discretion, cooperate with persons in pursuit of private remedies in circumstances consistent with law. For the avoidance of doubt, the decision of whether an agency will cooperate with individuals or organizations in their pursuit of private causes of action and civil remedies, and decisions regarding the extent of any cooperation, will be made solely in the discretion of that agency. The proposed subsection (b) is not intended to, and would not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Nothing in the proposed subsection (b) should be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof. A Federal agency should only cooperate with a private cause of action if it determines that such cooperation is in the interest of the United States
Section 200.305 — Federal payment. OMB proposes to revise § 200.305 to require Federal agencies to verify recipient eligibility through Treasury’s Do Not Pay (DNP) system before making any disbursement of any Federal payment. Consistent with the Payment Integrity Information Act of 20194 (PIIA),100 this addition is intended to strengthen oversight and prevent improper payments. Consistent with section 3 of Executive Order 14222, “Implementing the President's ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative,” OMB also proposes language that requires payment requests from recipients and subrecipients other than States to include justifications describing the purpose of the payment and the specific award-related work it supports. Under the proposed text, agencies must collect this information once appropriate systems are in place. These proposed changes would increase accountability for Federal disbursements while ensuring funds are tied to measurable award activities and outcomes.
Section 200.218 — Prohibition of using Federal awards to promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability. OMB proposes a new § 200.218 related to Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” Consistent with the Executive order, this section proposes to establish a government-wide policy in 2 CFR regarding use of Federal financial assistance to promote or support theories that impose disparate-impact liability based on federally protected characteristics such as race, sex, or age. OMB proposes to direct agencies and pass-through entities, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to ensure that awards are administered in a manner that does not promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability, including by not issuing terms, conditions, or guidance that would advance theories of disparate-impact liability. Recipients and subrecipients are also directed to avoid using Federal award funds for this purpose unless expressly required by law. OMB proposes to recognize an exception related to analysis for internal use if the activities are not funded by the Federal award and not used in connection with activities under the award. OMB proposes a definition of disparate-impact liability to ensure clarity and consistency. The proposed definition is generally consistent with the Executive order. These proposed revisions are intended to align government-wide administration of Federal financial assistance with administration policy and to reinforce the principle that merit-based opportunity—rather than theories of disparate-impact liability or other forms of unlawful discrimination based on race or other protected characteristics—will govern the administration of Federal awards.
Section 200.211 — Information contained in the Federal award. OMB proposes to revise § 200.211 to clarify that Federal agencies must always include the termination provisions under § 200.340 in each Federal award or expressly incorporate them by reference, and must inform recipients of any additional termination provisions that apply to the award. This revision is intended to ensure recipients are always clearly and unambiguously informed of the potential for termination under § 200.340, including termination based on discretion of the Federal agency. OMB also proposes deleting the reference to providing “a copy of the terms and conditions” to the recipient upon request. This requirement is outdated given the access that applicants and recipients now have to general terms and conditions on the internet. To the extent that applicable general term and conditions are not available on the internet, agencies would be responsible for providing them to the recipient—typically in electronic form—with the Federal award instrument. Federal agencies would still be permitted to mail a hard copy of the terms and conditions to recipients upon request even with removal of this provision, but would not be required to provided that the recipient has electronic access.
Section 200.208 — Specific conditions. OMB proposes to revise § 200.208 to clarify how agencies may apply, adjust, and remove specific conditions under Federal awards. OMB proposes to authorize agencies, subject to applicable law, to add or remove specific conditions throughout the period of performance based on the risk factors identified in paragraph (c) or other factors associated with a recipient or program. A new requirement is proposed to require that any such adjustments based on any of the factors listed in paragraph (c) must occur within 15 calendar days after the agency’s determination. The existing regulatory text already preserves the right of agencies to impose specific conditions based on these enumerated factors, which recipients knowingly accept when they agree to receive awards. OMB also proposes to clarify that specific conditions not based on factors in paragraph (c) may be added or removed during the period of performance only with the agreement of the recipient. In § 200.208(d), OMB also proposes to expand the list of examples of specific conditions to include requiring information on payments to contractors or vendors, or financial integrity- related site visits. These examples are intended to provide agencies with more practical tools to address risk identified during the administration of Federal awards. At § 200.208(f), OMB also proposes a new paragraph recognizing that agencies may impose program-level specific conditions when elevated programmatic risks are identified across a Federal program. The proposed text explains that agencies may remove such conditions once the underlying risks have been resolved, thereby allowing the use of program-level conditions to remain tied to ongoing risk management rather than continuing indefinitely. Collectively, these proposed changes provide agencies with greater flexibility to manage risk during award administration while establishing safeguards related to transparency and fairness.
Section 200.206 — Federal agency review of risk posed by applicants. OMB proposes to revise § 200.206(b)(2) to expand the list of factors that agencies may consider when evaluating applicant risk. The changes clarify that agencies may assess an applicant’s financial capacity to manage high-dollar awards, in addition to overall financial stability. The revisions also clarify that prior performance must be evaluated against the goals of the funding opportunity, and that both positive and negative outcomes must be given equal weight. OMB also proposes to add a provision that agencies may consider an applicant’s history of questionable practices based on publicly available and verifiable information. In addition, OMB proposes to add a provision that agencies may consider an applicant’s compliance with foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements, as applicable. Additionally, OMB proposes a new provision that agencies may consider an applicant’s affiliations with organizations engaged in activities that violate Federal law, undermine public safety or national security, or advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government. Lastly, OMB proposes a new provision that agencies should consider, as applicable, an applicant’s compliance with foreign gift and contract disclosure requirements under section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-329, as amended, codified at 20 U.S.C. 1011f). The proposed revisions are intended to provide agencies with clearer authority to evaluate financial and organizational capacity, integrity, and institutional affiliations in order to mitigate risks and protect the integrity of Federal programs.
Section 200.205 — Federal agency review of merit of proposals. OMB proposes to revise § 200.205 to strengthen requirements for agency merit review and to establish a new pre-issuance review process consistent with Executive Order 14332. Under the proposed requirements for pre-issuance review, as part of the broader merit review process, agencies must ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest. Consistent with the Executive order, senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating proposals. These principles include ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President’s policy priorities, prohibit the use of funds for discriminatory or otherwise impermissible purposes, and emphasize ensuring compliance with applicable law. Additionally, the proposed revisions encourage agencies to broaden the range of recipients, prioritize institutions demonstrating rigorous and reproducible scholarship, incorporate benchmarks for measuring performance of “Gold Standard Science,” and direct agencies to weigh institutional commitment to research integrity when making award decisions. Proposed revisions in this section also clarify that peer review remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion. Finally, the proposed revisions clarify that agencies are not required to issue awards solely as a result of issuing a NOFO. These proposed updates are intended to enhance consistency across agencies, accountability, and alignment of Federal awards with administration priorities, while also reducing the risk of award being made contrary to statutory or policy requirements.
If You Want Blood You Got It by AC/DC
Juxtaposition of post describing tenant catching landlord having sex in tenant’s apartment and Peter Avelino’s post of anniversary of film The Landlord opening in 1970
Article discussing a bug with cold temps where camera fails to record images to memory card. Was discovered by photographer when she was practicing for an important pic of sky from on top of a mountain
Double rainbow with downtown Cleveland and tall buildings in the background. Taken from the upper deck of Browns stadium
Finally, the emergency stay posture of California and NIH bears emphasis. Both decisions were rendered on applications for emergency relief, without full merits briefing or argument. As Justice Kagan observed in California, such orders are issued with “barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection.” 604 U.S. at 653 (Kagan, J., dissenting). This Court accords those orders the appropriate degree of respect. But, at the same time, lower courts are not tasked with divining the Supreme Court’s unstated intentions about how each of the Justices might rule in the future. To read NIH and California as silently displacing Bowen and Megapulse would require the Court to conclude that the Supreme Court has overruled longstanding precedent sub silentio – an inference this Court declines to draw, especially in light of the fractured emergency (and interim) order in NIH and the unresolved questions it leaves regarding the proper forum and scope of relief for challenges to grant terminations. See Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1, 18 (2000) (“The Court does not normally overturn, or so dramatically limit, earlier authority sub silentio.”).
ESPN graphic for the NFL draft misspelling the name of the city where the draft is
Cathedral of Learning with victory searchlight beaming into dark sky
Man surround by people saying WOULD into microphone
Full rainbow and hint of double rainbow against very deep gray and wet looking sky looking out over green grass of baseball stadium. Stadium lights are on and large buildings can be seen past the outfield
People grouped in front of Pittsburgh City-County Building with a blue sky and clouds in background. We are protesting No Kings
Nelson's chelengk was bought by the Society for Nautical Research in 1929 following a national appeal[5] and placed in the National Maritime Museum. It was stolen in 1951 by Taters Chatham and never recovered.[6]
Gary Numan then 64 playing “Our Friends Electric” at Thunderbird Cafe in Pittsburgh. He’s about 10 feet away from the camera.
Gary Numan live at the Roxian Theatre
Zebra swallowtail butterfly resting on some crusty old asphalt
Giant snow piles from a plowed parking lot. Starting to melt.
Green papaya salad with beef jerky and herbs. From my last visit to Vung Tau II in Milpitas CA in 2019
"Throughout his life, Dr. Duesberg maintained his position that H.I.V. does not cause AIDS, a contention that raised questions about the perils of undermining public trust in established scientists during an epidemic."
WOULD
A “Fashionably Late” cocktail in an Old Fashioned glass from my Pittsburgh local Independent Brewing Company
Beta Band on the Three EPs reunion tour
Modern Rock tracks from 1996 with my grading (from the hip, no revisiting)
Billboard Modern Rock Tracks from 1996 top 30 or so with my hand written grades for songs on top
Prince Cheddward peeks out insouciantly from behind shower curtain
White text saying “you are now forced to have the same job as the main character in the last book you read. What is the job?”
Waffle sandwich with syrup, bacon, vanilla ice cream, sausage on festive seasonal plate
Full Moon, Empty Heart artwork from the song by Belly playing on Apple Music
Man with microphone surrounded by people saying WOULD