Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘NCATS = Nat’l Center to Advance Translational Science under NIH

‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters.

leave a comment »

Post title with shortlink, started Feb. 17, 2018, published March 4:

‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters. (shortlink ending “-8F5”)   Post is short (about 6,100 words — can you believe it?!)

Subtitle: Some Historic Problems and Design Flaws — or Inherent Design Genius, depending on one’s perspective — with The American University System.


Post Viewing/Navigation: Images which may extend beyond the right margin are probably part of an image gallery.  Click on any one and use the navigation keys.  Unless otherwise notated in a caption and unless your viewing device does this better (as might an iPad or cell phone with touch/swipe functions), outside the galleries, click individual images to enlarge.
Content notes: I show some images or sets of images in more than one section of this post.  Related links: This post came from Where ‘First Five Years’ and the Manic Push for  ever more: Universal Preschool/EARLY Head Start meets the National Fatherhood Initiative’s purposes within TANF …” (a LONG post) and a separate SHORT”preface” page Understanding University Models...”. Those references will be posted again as they come up in their context.

Here, I discuss where “Colleges of Human Ecology and the intent to “develop” human beings from the start,” based on theories from high-profile psychologists such as the late Urie Bronfenbrenner (whom Cornell University’s center named in his honor credits for having founded, or inspired the massive “Head Start” programming itself), funded through their faculty positions meets “the imported university models” meets the “current US size and tax system” (university financing).


Tags:  I added labels (“tags”) for topics in this post, and included this one — though it’s not discussed below — because the post discussing it is related: “FAF Financial Accounting Foundation (estab. by AICPA ca.1971 Norwalk CT set up GASB+FASB who set the guidelines=acctg rules)(see also “CAFRs”)


Regardless of one’s perspective, the American universities both private and public still have a basic design. That design for each has been historically based on a certain model espoused by their founders, reflecting their values and what kind of economic infrastructure those founders wanted for the country.

MORRILL LAND-GRANT ACTS

(Reference added March 5, 2018): Why the Morrill Act Still Matters, July 16, 2012 by Christopher P. Loss in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Added here because it’s a short narrative and for the 19 comments below arguing pro/con the whole situation.  The comments are generally well-written and interesting.

Basics: Please read (for review, or if it’s not review) Wikipedia on the Morrill Land-Grant Acts.  These involved federal lands to establish state college right about the time of the Civil War (!) and after the Confederate states had seceded (although they later got theirs, too).  On that article, Cornell’s situation is in paragraphs 7 and 10.  Paras. 6, 7 and 10 quoted here.  Relates to Cornell and MIT.

Under the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (120 km2) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions described above. Under provision six of the Act, “No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act,” in reference to the recent secession of several Southern states and the contemporaneously raging American Civil War.

After the war, however, the 1862 Act was extended to the former Confederate states; it was eventually extended to every state and territory, including those created after 1862. If the federal land within a state was insufficient to meet that state’s land grant, the state was issued “scrip” which authorized the state to select federal lands in other states to fund its institution.[7] For example, New York carefully selected valuable timber land in Wisconsin to fund Cornell University.[8]p. 9 The resulting management of this scrip by the university yielded one third of the total grant revenues generated by all the states, even though New York received only one-tenth of the 1862 land grant.[8]p. 10 Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17,400,000 acres (70,000 km2) of land, which when sold yielded a collective endowment of $7.55 million.[8]p. 8

…With a few exceptions (including Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), nearly all of the land-grant colleges are public. (Cornell University, while private, administers several state-supported contract colleges that fulfill its public land-grant mission to the state of New York.)

To maintain their status as land-grant colleges, a number of programs are required to be maintained by the college. These include programs in agriculture and engineering, as well as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program

This situation, as Wikipedia tells it, also supplanted a more egalitarian (among the states) and earlier “Turner Act,” giving preference for the then more populous eastern states.  Overall, the federal lands represent land grabs from Native Americans originally, anyhow, so a case could be made that the entire situation is based on theft and land-grabs.  Anyhow….
Read the rest of this entry »

Public Health Service Act Timelines since 1944 through Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Incl. contributing Bill S.4108, right before before National Cancer Act of 1971). See also Tobacco Control Act of 2009 and NIH-FDA-related updates, Like: TCORS’ (so far) 14 Regulatory Science Resource Centers, or NCATS (2012ff) to better Advance Translational Science; predictably with continued Big Tobacco Litigation (protesting First Amendmt. Violations promoted by Tobacco Control Act of 2009) — and let’s not forget UCSF’s Multi-million-dollar, NIH- or FDA-sponsored: Centers, Institutes, and Famous Anti-smoking Professor. [Publ. Oct. 7 2017]

leave a comment »

This post follows logically from October 3rd’s, which was called:

 

This post is called:  Public Health Service Act Timelines since 1944 through Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Incl. contributing Bill S.4108, right before before National Cancer Act of 1971). See also Tobacco Control Act of 2009 and NIH-FDA-related updates, Like: TCORS’ (so far) 14 Regulatory Science Resource Centers, or NCATS (2012ff) to better Advance Translational Science; predictably with continued Big Tobacco Litigation (protesting First Amendmt. Violations promoted by Tobacco Control Act of 2009) — and let’s not forget UCSF’s Multi-million-dollar, NIH- or FDA-sponsored: Centers, Institutes, and Famous Anti-smoking Professor. (short-link ends “-7Iq” with “I” being a capital “i” as in, commonly used for the first person, singular, pronoun)

 The title needs some work, but regardless of the version, the underlying shortlink stays the same. Some prior versions feature different parts of the post:

Earlier, shorter version: Public Health Service Act Timelines since 1944 through Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Incl. contributing Bill S.4108, right before before National Cancer Act of 1971). See also Tobacco Act Updates, 14 New Resource Centers (TCORS), incl. at UCSF, FDA, and the NIH! .


Or: Timeline of Public Health Service Act since 1944 sets “Dance of Legislation” re S.4108 in historic context, including shortly before National Cancer Act. See also more recent Tobacco: Legislation, and TCORS (14 New FDA-funded Centers managed by the ODP, under NIH) and, as ever, with substantial Input and Output courtesy the famous anti-smoking Professor/Dr. (PhD not MD)/Author/Principal Investigator at UCSF!

Or:  Speaking of Big Money for Big Systems Transformation to Control Big Tobacco, see also more recent Tobacco Act Updates, NIH/ODPC’s 14 New Resource Centers (TCORS) incl. at UCSF, by way of FDA, and Business Opps for Linking Software Semantics Firms to Translated More Research, Faster, into Practice (CTSI at UCSF, funded by NIH coordinated under NIH by NCATS)! 

Or (10/7/2017 version): “…not to mention NIH’s NCATS (2012ff) to better Advance TRANSLATIONAL Science, not to mention ongoing Big Tobacco Litigation over First Amendment Violations, and let’s not forget UCSF and the Prolific Professor Glantz.

An appropriate title may be a lost cause.  Perhaps “Read this!” might work better….

Researching and writing it up was fun and further deepened my appreciation for anyone who dares stand up and ask some hard questions about how long we may expect this expansion and control of anything remotely unhealthy to be justified as up for centralized control of its use in commerce…  I learned that even some of the involved scientists at some of the centers were quitting over the disregard for basic science and the headlong rush from research to results.

Not reflected in this title — towards the bottom, I also took a look at how decisions at the international (WHO) level obligated members states — and the USA is one — to enact legislation for stated goals at the “National, regional and local levels.”  In this world view, national borders are the senemy — but within the US, an increasingly expanded HHS continues to claim that the private sector (i.e., cigarette and tobacco product manufacturers) are the bad guys…

You’ll see the post divides roughly into two parts — where I originally started it (second half) and where I elaborated and provided some background information on the various acronyms within the title — which represent responses in part to the most recent tobacco act updates.  In the bottom half (also not able to be squished into the title) I looked closer at how to facilitate the”CTSI” at UCSF for Professor Stephen A. Glantz, the semantic categorizing and extracting software must have had access to publications on line — which brought me again to “CENIC.org” and its “CalREN” project.

There are two “Read More” links in this post, so don’t miss the rest of the post by not clicking on the second one!  It’s about 12,600 14,000 words long.  Tags were added after publication.

 


ACRONYMS from the Title of this Post and within it:

TCORS = “Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science,” which is not to be confused with basic, medical, or any other kind of science.  These centers are not AT NIH, but they are coordinated by  — well let’s quote the first paragraph of the NIH website, then from the FDA website.  From the NIH website under  “Prevention.NIH.gov

P50 Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS), RFA-DA-13-003

The Tobacco Regulatory Science Program, located in the NIH Office of Disease Prevention, coordinates the trans-NIH collaborative effort with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products to conduct research that is needed to ensure that U.S. tobacco regulatory actions and activities are based on sound and relevant scientific evidence. The P50 Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) are the centerpiece of this NIH-FDA collaboration.

Researching and writing this post, I at first thought there were only 14 TCORS centers, however the “P50” designation may mean that the 14 centers (including one at UCSF headed by the professor referenced in the title) are only a subset of a larger number, perhaps 50.  Or perhaps not.  It’s just not immediately obvious.. or explained…. typical HHS!!

What “P50” as a designator refers to obviously it has some meaning to those using the term. However, that we should probably start using the term, is implied… Fourteen centers are named (and no others), however it simply doesn’t equate those fourteen centers with “The P50 Tobacco Centers…”  It says, fourteen have been funded.

Question: Is there any limit on how many such (P50 Tobacco) centers may exist in the future or how much is being spent on them?

Or on how many new categories of scientific-sounding phrases involving the word “clinical” and of course modifying the noun “science” can be devised to say “we want to speed up drug production and delivery,” get even better at telling people what’s healthy and unhealthy behavior, and forcing them to pay (whether through taxes supporting federal agencies, or taxes on cigarettes — or both — and to the point those efforts are simply in violation of basic rights of persons (including corporations), to defend themselves through on-going litigation by the well-endowed industry) to develop better ways to modify their unhealthy behaviors… ?

“Translational” wasn’t exactly a new term to me (although NCATS is a new center within NIH) but REGULATORY science? (the science of control and persuasion??)

Fourteen TCORS, made up of scientists with a broad range of expertise (e.g., epidemiology, economics, toxicology, addictions, and marketing) have been funded. More information about each of these fourteen TCORS is found below:  {{I also shows images on the 14, from this same page, much further below in the post}}:

Other clicks on this page (on “Tobacco Regulatory Science Program”) describe the FDA-NIH partnership as having been established in 2013, which is after the NCATS:

Tobacco Regulatory Science Program (TRSP)

Located in the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP), the Tobacco Regulatory Science Program (TRSP) coordinates* the trans-NIH collaborative effort with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) to conduct research to support its regulatory activities over tobacco products. Established in 2013 through an interagency partnership with the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products in 2012,** TRSP coordinates the collaborative research effort across the NIH with the FDA CTP.

**Thanks for “clarifying” that it was “established in 2013. through a partnership… in 2012…”  Where are their copyeditors?

*”TRSP … coordinates”:  Again, “programs” don’t coordinate, but the people or entities that run them, do.  A named “program” simply labels the work product, whether it’s from one entity, or a partnership between entities.  Example:  “Center for Court Innovation” (see recent post on “Collaborative Justice/Problem-solving Courts”) is a partnership, and a label to describe the joint operations (activities) of one major government entity — the NYS Unified Court System and another also major private one — Fund for the City of New York.

So program names are for promotional purposes and to direct others thinking, including towards anything special, shiny, or new, while in general, the huge size of the underlying entities continue to, continually, expand, and periodically restructure or reorganized.  My point is to continue pointing out the underlying entities behind the programs, especially when they are major public institutions, like HHS.

Here (TRSP), it sounds like one entity — the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (staff and leadership) is coordinating the TRSP which obviously involves communications with the FDA,  (<-Investopedia, a short paragraph; Wikipedia, incl. a timeline); which has been around since 1906 to administer the Food and Drug Act

(Question:  Since when did TOBACCO become either a food or a drug? How does this interact or relate to something quite different — but containing the word “Tobacco” — the ATF/Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, which goes as far back as to collecting for the Revolutionary War Debt (see “Allgov.com” on the ATF)?) …

Partial answer: ALLGov.com on the ATF history (I see it’s changed its name recently, to add “Explosives” becoming ATFE.) So, it was FIRST about money — and raising it — for government debt, until at some point it was decided to be ALSO about health…

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 7, 2017 at 4:12 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: