The National Health Institutes announced on Friday that the Agency prepares a reduction in donations that support research institutions by limiting the amount of indirect funds for research projects only 15%.
In the announcement of the Agency, the NIH Policy Office for the inventional research administration or opera wrote a total of $ 9 billion in the research grants in the fiscal year 2023. Separated from the indirect costs, which covered things like equipment, surgery, maintenance, accounting and staff.
When the scientist receives the Federal NIH Grant for the project – say $ 500,000 – an institution that is being receiving an additional percentage for those indirect costs. These rates are negotiated between the donor and the university or the research institution.
“The indirect system makes sense at a certain level. You must support the infrastructure of the place. No new construction can be raised every time I get a research grant,” Michael Eisen, University of California, Berkeley, biologist. “I don’t pay for electricity in my lab, I don’t pay HVAC, I’m not paying for earnings.”
The memo noted that the average speeds of indirect costs for the organizations received by the NIH were between 27% and 28%, but sometimes they could be even greater.
Opera has noticed that it reached 15% of the standard indirect rate by viewing indirect costs in several private foundations financing Robert Wood Johnson, Carnegie Corporation from New York, and John Templeton Foundation, all have maximum indirect cost rates between 10% and 15%.
“The United States should have the best medical research in the world. Accordingly, it is vital to ensure that as many funds go towards direct scientific research costs, not the administrative supervisory”, in question, wrote in its direction.
The agency also estimated that it could save $ 4 billion by breaking indirect costs at 15%.
But scientists in various research and higher education institutions have pointed out that the solution to indirect costs could be harmful to research studies, as it would mean that the cutting funds for scientific research laboratories.
“Sanena government would never do”, Jeffrey Fleer, former Dean Harvard Medical School, wrote in post on x.
Eisen said he watched the indirect financing system as a Byzantine, opaque and worthy of re-examination.
. Why would taxpayers pay those things? “” Said Eisen. “I would welcome really careful review of how structured grants and where money goes into a grant and who is in charge of allocation, with greater transparency and clarity for money.”
But Eisen said the new guideline was “raw” and “a poorly designed” approach that would transfer the severity of the survey to universities, not the federal government.
“Basically says:” Do you have all that money, universities, spend it on research, why should the government spend it on research? “” Said Eisen. “Most universities have no means to enter and cover this. It is not sustainable.”
Eisen said he thinks that the effect of politics would, if he remains in his current form, was less biomedical research, in total.
“This will have a bad effect on research. If you don’t want that to happen, you can achieve this in this way,” Eisen said.
Katie Miller, one of the appointed President Donald Trump on the newly formed Department for the Efficiency of the Government or Dog, celebrated the entry Post on xWriting “,” President Trump works from the Liberal Dei Dean “Slush Fund. Only Harvard’s disgusting prices for ~ 250 million a year,” accusing researchers from high indirect costs costs.
Senate did not confirm the new director of NIH. Dr. Jay Bhattachary, professor University Stanford, was nominated for Trump position. His / her confirmation hearings are not yet scheduled.
“Certainly, this will appear,” Eisen said.
2025-02-08 23:53:00
