How do academics fund the studies they're interested in pursuing? Why did AG Weiser hire outside attorneys for the Elijah McClain trial?

A peek behind the curtain.  How do studies get funded?  What is the mechanism?

If you read enough papers, if you start asking questions about who is funding what (or alternatively, what is the, say, CDC funding), you eventually come 'round to databases/lists like the ones below.  

The context behind this post was a banner ad I saw while playing chess.  The banner ad was seeking men to see if fracking and/or the chemicals used in fracking would be associated with reproductive health changes and/or infertility in males.  The study offered $100 for qualified participants who would, among other things, submit samples of urine and semen to be analyzed.

I got curious to know who was funding this study and to know more so I wrote the study authors to ask.  I thought I would share how I found the info so that you could do same if you were curious, and also so that you could get a look behind the curtain as to how academics go about their business.

The two links first below are from the National Institutes of Health (NIH's RePorter) and the CDC (awards data) respectively.  Both are good jumping off points for learning more about what NIH and CDC are funding.**

In the case of the fracking study, on the advice of the person who responded to my email, I went to "Advanced Search" and typed in the investigator's name.  What I got is attached as screenshot 1.  Before looking in on that, let me just talk in general about searching.  

I think the best way to get familiar with these databases is just to play around.  For example, a good general way to search is shown in screenshot 2.  If you have no specific name or idea what your interest would be called, look for something like "Categorical Spending" (circled in red).

For me, public health and gun violence are an interest, so I'll scroll on that page down to the heading "Violence" and try there (screenshot 3).  The most current is 2022, so I click on that link and this gets me to screenshot 4, a list of studies I could look through to see if any are about gun violence.  

Okay, so back to screenshot 1 and let's talk about what you see.  What you see is pretty typical of research proposals.  You can fairly well generalize what I put below to most grant proposals.

The proposal covers the need to do this research.  This could be both in terms of a lack of current research on the topic, a lack in thoroughness of current research (as in this case), and/or a need for this research to help with (again, as you see in this case) some urgent health outcome.  

It covers what will get studied.

It covers how it will be studied.

And lastly, as you can see in the last sentence here, it talks about the contribution this research will make to society.

As I mentioned above, you'll see these features in grant proposals for many fields.  The thing that is new to me (and that makes me wonder where else this shows up) is the "Public Health Relevance Statement".  I'll have to keep my eyes open as I see studies on gun violence and public health.

As attested to by the fact that they were advertising for participants, this proposal got funded.  At the end of this study, the results will be given to NIH and will be added (presumably) to the relevant databases maintained by them.  

That's about it on these.  Again, if looking through studies about health outcomes (or other related topics) is of interest, I hope this helped.  If you encounter something and wonder about it, please feel free to email me or message me.  


**I did look at CDPHE and tried to see if they had a single-source thing where you could look up who they're funding and for what.  Unfortunately, I couldn't find one and no one could direct me to one.  Thus no link.  The best strategy to take, therefore, is to look on each individual department page for grantees.

https://report.nNih.gov/

https://www.cdc.gov/grants/resources/AwardData.html

---

Why did the Attorney General Phil Weiser hire out of town people to prosecute the Elijah McClain trial?  

I read the op ed by Brauchler (linked first below) recently and it sparked some questions for me.  I'll leave it to you to read the op ed and see the allegations made by Mr. Brauchler, but I can sum it up pretty well.

First some context.  The Attorney General (given the job by Gov Polis) is the official lead prosecutor in the Elijah McClain trial.  No dispute about that.

Mr. Brauchler, however, alleges that Weiser skipped over any number of competent criminal attorneys and DA's in this state to give the lead prosecutorial role to a couple of out of state  and nationally-known attorneys (with the comensurate charges that such attorneys would ask for to come and prosecute here).

It gets worse because Mr. Brauchler alleges that both the out of state prosecutors appointed by Weiser are not actually criminal attorneys but rather civil attorneys.  

The how's and why's of things are always of interest to me, so I wanted to get more information here.  I reached out to the Attorney General's office to see what was going on.  I sent an email to the press people with the following questions:

1. Is Mr. Brauchler accurate, are the two attorneys appointed by AG Weiser as described?

 2..  Is the rate he quoted accurate?  I.e. what are taxpayers being charged?

 3.  Did AG Weiser ask any state district attorneys?  If so, were they not (by whatever criteria he set) acceptable?  If he didn't, why not?

 4.  Why did AG Weiser choose the attorneys he did?

 5.  I believe the copy of the contract between his office and the attorneys should be public record right?  If so, can you send or would you prefer an official CORA request?

In response, I got the following from the AG's office (both the questions above and the below are quotes from the email exchange):

"The Department of Law has put together a dedicated and experienced team to prosecute three, back-to-back, monthlong trials of the officers and paramedics charged with the death of Elijah McClain. The State is fortunate to have as part of the team highly qualified attorneys from the Quinn Emanuel law firm, who are former federal prosecutors and experienced litigators. Jonathan Bunge and Duane Lyons are offering their time and expertise for free because of their commitment to justice, accountability, and the rule of law.  You will need to file a records request for the contract."

I did indeed send in a CORA request for the contract and attached the AG's response.  That is screenshots 1a and 1b (too big for one screencap and you read them in that order 1a then 1b).  

There are some subtleties involved here which I can go into in more depth if you are interested, but the upshot is this.

There are two kinds of records requests:  CORA and CCJRA.  The first is the garden-variety kind, the second is specifically for records involving the law, courts, and the like.  

I sent in a CORA request for the contracts.  The AG's office is characterizing this request as covered, not by the law for CORA, but for CCJRA.  This strikes me as an odd choice.  Technically I believe it's allowed, but I would ask this:  for a contract for the attorneys you hired?  

Whatever the reasoning, as the letter indicates, CCJRA requests allow more discretion for what the AG's office will (and WILL NOT) share.  And the AG's office is using this as a reason to not share too much.

They did throw me a single bone, however.  That one I attached as screenshot 2.  It's an email between folks in the Colorado state government.

It shows that (unless the law firm requests more), the state will shell out $50k max for these lawyers.  That's a lot of money of course, but for nationally-known lawyers this as a maximum is a pittance.  I suppose that ties in with what the AG's office says above when they wrote me that "Jonathan Bunge and Duane Lyons are offering their time and expertise for free ..."  I.e. it ain't $0, but for lawyers like these $50k is pretty close.

The response I got from the AG's office leaves something to be desired.  I don't just mean the fact that they characterized my request in such a way as to hide details either.  I want you to take note of all that he didn't answer.  

No response as to why this couldn't be done by local DA's or other experienced CRIMINAL prosecutors.

I get it that these two lawyers offered to do it for free, but that doesn't mean you have to accept.  Why take their offer?**

I did follow up with the AG's office to ask for their reasoning re. denying my records request (see screenshot 1b at the "five factors" part).  I did get a response to that a few days later.  The response was, quoting the email from Weiser's office, "The attorney general’s office has complied with CCJRA in our response to your records request."

Not in my book and also note that this is effectively saying, no we won't tell you why we denied it.  I reached out to Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition and read some of the resources on their page.  By my reading of things, I should be able to get more of the rationale for denying the records request.  I sent this back to the AG's office telling them why I believe I should get the rationale and asking for either that or a reason why they don't believe they need to share.

As of this writing, I haven't yet heard back.  When I do, I'll share.  

One last thing as I wrap up.  I emailed someone in talk radio once and made a remark about AG Weiser.  This person said he was, at heart, a good guy who believed in good government even if he is pretty Progressive in his outlook and orientation.

I wonder now, having gone through this as well as other things, whether or not this person would agree with me that good government ought to include transparency, apparently a value Weiser doesn't share.

**I had a friend joke (and it needs to be noted that this is speculation) that these lawyers are either connected politically in a way that could help AG Weiser now or in the future, or perhaps they offered a donation.  I'll check on the donations later.

https://denvergazette.com/opinion/columns/column-ag-farms-out-colorado-case-to-tourist-attorneys-george-brauchler/article_efa4bdf3-6153-591e-83f9-e2dcec973863.html