About time. Whatever rises from its ashes will be an improvement. Stop the meaningless virtue-signaling pretending you thought it was a force for good in the last 20 years. Start with explaining why they turned the food pyramid upside down, leading to deadly levels of obesity.
I hear your concern.... However, to be honest I am beyond discouraged by the current state of "Medical Science". Our medical establishment has been hijacked;
The best way forward is to start over.
I see almost no downside to dismantling the NIH system, even if we did nothing to replace it. In addition our dependence on Pharma to pay for much of their own research and to self regulate/cherry pick publish data is a farce.
It tells a different story. Its not so clear that the process currently used to calculate indirects is congressionally mandated. The NIH does not propose to eliminate indirects, only to reduce them to levels non-Governmental funders pay.
Early in my career, I was invited to a meeting at the UC Presidents office in Oakland, CA. It was about what was then thought to be an eminant crises in NIH finding (this was back in 1993). In developing a response to lower proposed NIH funding, we were advised not to appear to the public as "welfare mothers with white coats." The statment came from the concern that the government had created an entire class of researchers whose livelihood depended on goverment grants. It had become an industry on to itself. Because most of these people were relatively highly paid, there would be little public sympathy for them.
Isn’t the 15% based on private sector grants allowances (such as the Gates Foundation)? I thought they looked at other funding and found the government grants were not in line with private sector charitable funding, so this number reflects what NGO funding allows. Is this correct?
The article stated, “To understand why 15% will result in major reductions in research, take Harvard’s rate of 69% as an example. Their facilities rate is 43% and the administrative rate is 26%, equaling 69%. The new 15% cap would include both those numbers. Thus, Harvard would now have 21% of the money for research they had with a 69% cap.”
This is simply incorrect. At 69% overhead, a $100 grant for research results in Harvard getting a total of $169. At 15%, a total of $115. $115/$169 = 68%. Thus, Harvard would now have 68% of the money for research they had with a 69% cap.
It is not obvious that the author’s other points (which are more difficult for the layman to check) are correct when the one that is trivial to check is clearly wrong.
Getting out of the weeds for a moment....None in industry or government are interested in full research and statistical analysis of the effectiveness of currently available and/or inexpensive therapeutics....So then in this way both industry *and government* can reject inexpensive therapeutics out of hand because there is no / not enough evidence that the lower cost drug is effective to treat additional illness...Result (1) more cancer with not much better quality or longevity of life; (2) the great USA 4x more death from covidian virus than other civilized - and uncivilized - countries; (3) diabetes out of control in all age groups to where it is now prevalent in children (50-60 years ago I might have heard of one or two classmates the entire 12 years) and their answer is toxic ozempic that you will see pulled by 2027...I could go on, but I need to gather firewood for rfk_jr
This was neither strong nor well argued. But it was self serving. Do better in picking your guest editorials if you are going to have them. Or, perhaps, there is no good counter argument.
The central issue is that the iron law of institutions applies.
When the business cycle is favorable, institutions are flush with cash for projects, and the institutional bureaucracy grows, then defends itself from reduction when the cash flow cyclically diminishes.
The "scalpel" approach requires a cooperative "surgeon." The "surgeons" are the very bureaucrats qualified to wield the scalpel, and they do so with their self-interest guiding their hand.
There comes a time when the funding sources become insolvent, and that is where we find ourselves now.
No Leslie, the NIH is not being slashed and burned. But it is interesting to hear from an obviously intelligent person defend the indefensible. Indirect costs are simply a boondoggle. I could understand tagging on indirect costs for say a percentage of the maintenance of a PIs space. But consider a PI with a 3000 sq ft lab (corresponding to 10 modules), it sure doesn't cost even 10% of a standard NIH grant to maintain that space. That's simply daylight robbery. Further, what indirect costs have done is to completely distort the purpose of academia and the universities. The latter are now just businesses drinking at the government teet. That's why you have a situation of no federal grant no tenure. Lucky Andrew Wyles who spent 7 years in his attic solving Fermat's Last Theorem while at Princeton (he's now back in Oxford) already had tenure, otherwise he would have been out of luck.
Now one could envision a situation where each university negotiated with the federal government for a certain amount of federal support. But if they did that they would effectively become part of the federal government and subject to the rules of the federal government.
In addition to all of that, if it were up to me I would stop all federal grants to universities who continue to carry out DEI initiatives (whether explicitly or implicitly) and who continue to support blatant anti-semitism. You can bet your bottom dollar that if this were done the Universities would quickly get their act together.
I'm afraid Leslie you are on the losing side of the argument on this. Indirect costs are going to be reduced to a reasonable number which may well end up below 15% if DOGE has anything to do with it. And while there will be upheavals, the US research enterprise will. emerge leaner, more efficient and better than ever before.
Looking to understand better I was eager for a good counter argument to Vinay. Unfortunately I was disappointed by the points chosen for discussion in this article as they are not at the crux of the problem.
If we can get majorly upset of cost over-runs in military projects…that they agreed upon a specific cost….then why are we just saying that you at the NIH can send more funds for the same agreed upon project. So low bidders get grants then say…”oh my” we want more money onto of the proposal . Any grants are not to be given entitled to automatic cost increases that those grant organization failed to include in their budgeted grant proposal. I use to believe the NIH completely….NOT now…they have been so corrupted, they should have said the entire covid scam was being mismanaged yet did not!….Degrade it all…and rebuild…grants are to be carefully reviewed by select apolitical committee and closely monitored…with rare cost of living increases…no automatic adjustments!
Yep. They can start with the billions Big Pharma spends on medicine advertising, not to sell said medicines, but in order to control media narratives. Use that to fund new research.
You make some good arguments, and that supports a more researched approach to cost cutting.
Yet that hasn't occurred, the system seems incapable of addressing its failures (and thus improving its successes).
The basic issue is we spend too much and something has to be done about it. A time of change is on us, the government has waited too long to be afforded delay in addressing its overspending.
Frankly its gotten worse not better even after it being clear that deficit spending had to end. So there seems no way to end it other than creative destruction.
The article makes some good points. However, instead of a long discussion about why funding shouldn't be cut, shouldn't it instead be more about where and how cuts can be made that are more appropriate.
About time. Whatever rises from its ashes will be an improvement. Stop the meaningless virtue-signaling pretending you thought it was a force for good in the last 20 years. Start with explaining why they turned the food pyramid upside down, leading to deadly levels of obesity.
Dr Bienen,
I hear your concern.... However, to be honest I am beyond discouraged by the current state of "Medical Science". Our medical establishment has been hijacked;
The best way forward is to start over.
I see almost no downside to dismantling the NIH system, even if we did nothing to replace it. In addition our dependence on Pharma to pay for much of their own research and to self regulate/cherry pick publish data is a farce.
I do not feel something is better than nothing.
Intersting discussion.
Regarding the lawsuit you cited. Reading the Government's response is informative: https://clearinghouse.net/doc/155427/
It tells a different story. Its not so clear that the process currently used to calculate indirects is congressionally mandated. The NIH does not propose to eliminate indirects, only to reduce them to levels non-Governmental funders pay.
Early in my career, I was invited to a meeting at the UC Presidents office in Oakland, CA. It was about what was then thought to be an eminant crises in NIH finding (this was back in 1993). In developing a response to lower proposed NIH funding, we were advised not to appear to the public as "welfare mothers with white coats." The statment came from the concern that the government had created an entire class of researchers whose livelihood depended on goverment grants. It had become an industry on to itself. Because most of these people were relatively highly paid, there would be little public sympathy for them.
So-here we go again...
I've long proposed writing a return on the investmen as part of future grant contracts for the research that results in future profits. 1%? 0.1%?
Isn’t the 15% based on private sector grants allowances (such as the Gates Foundation)? I thought they looked at other funding and found the government grants were not in line with private sector charitable funding, so this number reflects what NGO funding allows. Is this correct?
The article stated, “To understand why 15% will result in major reductions in research, take Harvard’s rate of 69% as an example. Their facilities rate is 43% and the administrative rate is 26%, equaling 69%. The new 15% cap would include both those numbers. Thus, Harvard would now have 21% of the money for research they had with a 69% cap.”
This is simply incorrect. At 69% overhead, a $100 grant for research results in Harvard getting a total of $169. At 15%, a total of $115. $115/$169 = 68%. Thus, Harvard would now have 68% of the money for research they had with a 69% cap.
It is not obvious that the author’s other points (which are more difficult for the layman to check) are correct when the one that is trivial to check is clearly wrong.
Getting out of the weeds for a moment....None in industry or government are interested in full research and statistical analysis of the effectiveness of currently available and/or inexpensive therapeutics....So then in this way both industry *and government* can reject inexpensive therapeutics out of hand because there is no / not enough evidence that the lower cost drug is effective to treat additional illness...Result (1) more cancer with not much better quality or longevity of life; (2) the great USA 4x more death from covidian virus than other civilized - and uncivilized - countries; (3) diabetes out of control in all age groups to where it is now prevalent in children (50-60 years ago I might have heard of one or two classmates the entire 12 years) and their answer is toxic ozempic that you will see pulled by 2027...I could go on, but I need to gather firewood for rfk_jr
This was neither strong nor well argued. But it was self serving. Do better in picking your guest editorials if you are going to have them. Or, perhaps, there is no good counter argument.
The central issue is that the iron law of institutions applies.
When the business cycle is favorable, institutions are flush with cash for projects, and the institutional bureaucracy grows, then defends itself from reduction when the cash flow cyclically diminishes.
The "scalpel" approach requires a cooperative "surgeon." The "surgeons" are the very bureaucrats qualified to wield the scalpel, and they do so with their self-interest guiding their hand.
There comes a time when the funding sources become insolvent, and that is where we find ourselves now.
No Leslie, the NIH is not being slashed and burned. But it is interesting to hear from an obviously intelligent person defend the indefensible. Indirect costs are simply a boondoggle. I could understand tagging on indirect costs for say a percentage of the maintenance of a PIs space. But consider a PI with a 3000 sq ft lab (corresponding to 10 modules), it sure doesn't cost even 10% of a standard NIH grant to maintain that space. That's simply daylight robbery. Further, what indirect costs have done is to completely distort the purpose of academia and the universities. The latter are now just businesses drinking at the government teet. That's why you have a situation of no federal grant no tenure. Lucky Andrew Wyles who spent 7 years in his attic solving Fermat's Last Theorem while at Princeton (he's now back in Oxford) already had tenure, otherwise he would have been out of luck.
Now one could envision a situation where each university negotiated with the federal government for a certain amount of federal support. But if they did that they would effectively become part of the federal government and subject to the rules of the federal government.
In addition to all of that, if it were up to me I would stop all federal grants to universities who continue to carry out DEI initiatives (whether explicitly or implicitly) and who continue to support blatant anti-semitism. You can bet your bottom dollar that if this were done the Universities would quickly get their act together.
I'm afraid Leslie you are on the losing side of the argument on this. Indirect costs are going to be reduced to a reasonable number which may well end up below 15% if DOGE has anything to do with it. And while there will be upheavals, the US research enterprise will. emerge leaner, more efficient and better than ever before.
A cleaver is the appropriate instrument for this phase. A scalpel may be appropriate at some time in the future.
Looking to understand better I was eager for a good counter argument to Vinay. Unfortunately I was disappointed by the points chosen for discussion in this article as they are not at the crux of the problem.
If we can get majorly upset of cost over-runs in military projects…that they agreed upon a specific cost….then why are we just saying that you at the NIH can send more funds for the same agreed upon project. So low bidders get grants then say…”oh my” we want more money onto of the proposal . Any grants are not to be given entitled to automatic cost increases that those grant organization failed to include in their budgeted grant proposal. I use to believe the NIH completely….NOT now…they have been so corrupted, they should have said the entire covid scam was being mismanaged yet did not!….Degrade it all…and rebuild…grants are to be carefully reviewed by select apolitical committee and closely monitored…with rare cost of living increases…no automatic adjustments!
I don’t want my tax dollars funding new pharmaceuticals that only serve to enrich Pharma. Let them fund their own research.
Yep. They can start with the billions Big Pharma spends on medicine advertising, not to sell said medicines, but in order to control media narratives. Use that to fund new research.
You make some good arguments, and that supports a more researched approach to cost cutting.
Yet that hasn't occurred, the system seems incapable of addressing its failures (and thus improving its successes).
The basic issue is we spend too much and something has to be done about it. A time of change is on us, the government has waited too long to be afforded delay in addressing its overspending.
Frankly its gotten worse not better even after it being clear that deficit spending had to end. So there seems no way to end it other than creative destruction.
The article makes some good points. However, instead of a long discussion about why funding shouldn't be cut, shouldn't it instead be more about where and how cuts can be made that are more appropriate.