50% overhead is unrealistic and needs to be stopped, Those who say, there isn't a "run in time" simply want to delay what needs to happen. They don't get this from ANYONE else. The truth is that the feds have allowed academics to feed at the government trough way too long. Should we pay 60% for social scientists to do research - when there are no "refrigerators", cultures or other assets to support? The outcry is miserable whining. This is not going to support them - or their labs - it is going to build "legacies" for university presidents and trustees who can't manage a balance sheet. The same ones who are saying they are promoting research are willing to take big NCAA money from big college sports. Despite being "progressive"" in their politics they are more than willing to take the capitalist cash to build more and more brick and mortar, while raising tuition year after year,
Why not have variable indirectly depending on type of grant. For example, wet labs cost more to maintain, whereas a data mining grant does not require the same costs. I agree that real transparency and justification for indirectlsvis needed. Also needed is justification for all of the administrative staff supported by indirects.
Fantastic article. Many of us in university research have been fighting this inequity for years. I was cancelled for questioning the unproven narrative about masks, covid vaccinations for kids, and for treating patients with proven, but not recognized by the FDA, drugs. May I also point out that most university research is industry sponsored and directed. There are dozens of way they design these studies for predetermined outcomes and suppress unfavorable results. No wonder the public has lost faith in Science and medicine in particular. It has been politicized and controlled by big pharma and big government far more interested in profits than what is in the best interest of the patient.
And to correct some facts, NIH training grants have always been capped at 8% f&a because they are just supporting trainee stipends and not the research project and its infrastructure. Similarly, equipment purchases almost never include an overhead component since that would come from the operating grant, not the purchase.
One does not get better schools by letting the school bully assign his minions the job of destroying all the equipment. I thought this blog was supposed to be about medicine and science, not blame-gaming and partisanship. If my responding is aiding the latter, then I apologize....just as easy to unsubscribe.
If we just go back in "History" 4 years, the whole economy was turned up on end by the same agencies that we are now trying to reign in. The people who suffered had no voice at the time, they were not people in charge of massive research efforts good or bad. I venture to say few in the academic class suffered anything like the working men and women of the country. The working men and women got their voice!! Now it is time for the scientific community to make drastic changes, that insure the taxpayers are getting something valuable, and earn the trust of everyone! The sooner the better, but there has to be major change! Be part of the process. I'll parrot the suggestion of Vinay once again: "We need to study scientifically the processes(social, environmental, economic, agricultural, industrial, medical educational...) that lead to poor health." I'll add(totally unsupported by science): The health of the nation as a whole is much more dependent on getting those right than our disease directed research efforts. I think medical education has been gutted and if AI(artificial ignorance) doesn't work for you and your old doctor retires you will be out of luck.
You are right on target, especially pointing out why we are the sickest nation on earth, despite spending the most on medical treatment. What a deal for big government, big medicine and big pharma.
.......“To cut waste,” they say, “is to harm the vulnerable, to strip away the safety net.” Sounds reasonable to the unsuspecting citizen but nothing could be more deceitful. Wasteful spending is not the same as essential spending.
To prune a tree is not to kill it, but rather to ensure its health and vitality. Indeed, every dollar squandered on a needless program is a dollar stolen from those who truly need help. The resources of the state are not infinite, and to allow waste is to commit grave injustice against both the taxpayer and the destitute......
Why would anyone think that a flat across the board indirect cost rate makes sense? If there is dissatisfaction with the currently negotiated rates, which were adopted in response to documented costs at each institution, then HHS needs to do a better job of negotiating rates. Identify the inappropriate charges that have been included in the cost basis, and reduce the rate accordingly. But to say that 15% should be sufficient for whatever research is being carried out without evidence is simply ludicrous.
The idea that philanthropy and endowments should subsidize NIH-funded research sounds to me like a heavy handed government tax. What if NASA told SpaceX that it would no longer pay the full cost of sending astronauts into space and that the rest of the cost should come from philanthropy or out of Musk’s pocket or paid by shareholders? Do you think that would go over well?
This old retired surgeon is not surprised at this latest "bureaucratic market" correction, which seems to occur every 15 years or so, and like forest fires is necessary for regrowth. From experience, the funding system will regrow, and for the better. Governmental F&A contributions and administrative requirements have just reset the set point higher in an inflationary cycle, and needs to be burned back down. Institutions will not close, puppies will not die, and people will resume life.
The right number is 115%. The NIH is totally useless and all the fake research needs to be gone. What health exactly has the NIH instituted for the better?
I think it would be easier if you just listed the life-saving medications that did not come from NIH-based research to support your point. Then we can list the ones that did and have the group decide if the downstream therapies used by millions of people in the US and globally to feel better and live longer aren't worth it.
This is a stupid discussion without any historical or legal framework applied. If you want to read something with a good discussion of the issues, see this: https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih
50% overhead is unrealistic and needs to be stopped, Those who say, there isn't a "run in time" simply want to delay what needs to happen. They don't get this from ANYONE else. The truth is that the feds have allowed academics to feed at the government trough way too long. Should we pay 60% for social scientists to do research - when there are no "refrigerators", cultures or other assets to support? The outcry is miserable whining. This is not going to support them - or their labs - it is going to build "legacies" for university presidents and trustees who can't manage a balance sheet. The same ones who are saying they are promoting research are willing to take big NCAA money from big college sports. Despite being "progressive"" in their politics they are more than willing to take the capitalist cash to build more and more brick and mortar, while raising tuition year after year,
Why not have variable indirectly depending on type of grant. For example, wet labs cost more to maintain, whereas a data mining grant does not require the same costs. I agree that real transparency and justification for indirectlsvis needed. Also needed is justification for all of the administrative staff supported by indirects.
I’m unsubscribing
Our government isn’t a business. Government and business are different.
Fantastic article. Many of us in university research have been fighting this inequity for years. I was cancelled for questioning the unproven narrative about masks, covid vaccinations for kids, and for treating patients with proven, but not recognized by the FDA, drugs. May I also point out that most university research is industry sponsored and directed. There are dozens of way they design these studies for predetermined outcomes and suppress unfavorable results. No wonder the public has lost faith in Science and medicine in particular. It has been politicized and controlled by big pharma and big government far more interested in profits than what is in the best interest of the patient.
And to correct some facts, NIH training grants have always been capped at 8% f&a because they are just supporting trainee stipends and not the research project and its infrastructure. Similarly, equipment purchases almost never include an overhead component since that would come from the operating grant, not the purchase.
One does not get better schools by letting the school bully assign his minions the job of destroying all the equipment. I thought this blog was supposed to be about medicine and science, not blame-gaming and partisanship. If my responding is aiding the latter, then I apologize....just as easy to unsubscribe.
From this post I learned that Universities command a large brokers fee to host research.
Can I point out that these entities are sitting on MASSIVE endowments? They are so large there is no way they can spend it.
Further indirect costs is basically rent. Rent seeking and commissions for hosting paid research staff.
Given this money flow and dependency, can anyone not understand how easy it becomes to become a central command for federal governance?
This same process is controlling physician education slots and residency programs. My profession has become a ward of the state.
If we just go back in "History" 4 years, the whole economy was turned up on end by the same agencies that we are now trying to reign in. The people who suffered had no voice at the time, they were not people in charge of massive research efforts good or bad. I venture to say few in the academic class suffered anything like the working men and women of the country. The working men and women got their voice!! Now it is time for the scientific community to make drastic changes, that insure the taxpayers are getting something valuable, and earn the trust of everyone! The sooner the better, but there has to be major change! Be part of the process. I'll parrot the suggestion of Vinay once again: "We need to study scientifically the processes(social, environmental, economic, agricultural, industrial, medical educational...) that lead to poor health." I'll add(totally unsupported by science): The health of the nation as a whole is much more dependent on getting those right than our disease directed research efforts. I think medical education has been gutted and if AI(artificial ignorance) doesn't work for you and your old doctor retires you will be out of luck.
You are right on target, especially pointing out why we are the sickest nation on earth, despite spending the most on medical treatment. What a deal for big government, big medicine and big pharma.
MAHA- hopefully he also works on gun violence.
.......“To cut waste,” they say, “is to harm the vulnerable, to strip away the safety net.” Sounds reasonable to the unsuspecting citizen but nothing could be more deceitful. Wasteful spending is not the same as essential spending.
To prune a tree is not to kill it, but rather to ensure its health and vitality. Indeed, every dollar squandered on a needless program is a dollar stolen from those who truly need help. The resources of the state are not infinite, and to allow waste is to commit grave injustice against both the taxpayer and the destitute......
{The Waxahachie Sun}
Why would anyone think that a flat across the board indirect cost rate makes sense? If there is dissatisfaction with the currently negotiated rates, which were adopted in response to documented costs at each institution, then HHS needs to do a better job of negotiating rates. Identify the inappropriate charges that have been included in the cost basis, and reduce the rate accordingly. But to say that 15% should be sufficient for whatever research is being carried out without evidence is simply ludicrous.
The idea that philanthropy and endowments should subsidize NIH-funded research sounds to me like a heavy handed government tax. What if NASA told SpaceX that it would no longer pay the full cost of sending astronauts into space and that the rest of the cost should come from philanthropy or out of Musk’s pocket or paid by shareholders? Do you think that would go over well?
Also ridiculous to say that every grant to certain institutions have the same rate!
Now you want to compare the cost of NASA/Boeing mission to space with the Space X as part of your argument...Good Luck with that.
This old retired surgeon is not surprised at this latest "bureaucratic market" correction, which seems to occur every 15 years or so, and like forest fires is necessary for regrowth. From experience, the funding system will regrow, and for the better. Governmental F&A contributions and administrative requirements have just reset the set point higher in an inflationary cycle, and needs to be burned back down. Institutions will not close, puppies will not die, and people will resume life.
I thought this was a blog about Bad Science. Your comment has just turned it into plain old BS.
Sometime the truth hurts, especially when it comes to our sacred institutions.
The right number is 115%. The NIH is totally useless and all the fake research needs to be gone. What health exactly has the NIH instituted for the better?
I think it would be easier if you just listed the life-saving medications that did not come from NIH-based research to support your point. Then we can list the ones that did and have the group decide if the downstream therapies used by millions of people in the US and globally to feel better and live longer aren't worth it.