National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
arstechnica.com
National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
1–10 of 42 posts
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#2[deleted]
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#3The overhead being charged at a lot of these places was obscene (and variable- it all depended on the specific institution). A fixed rate of 15% seems low, but reasonable. I expect the admin especially at places that charge a premium will be furious.
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#4The overhead being charged at a lot of these places was obscene (and variable- it all depended on the specific institution). A fixed rate of 15% seems low, but reasonable. I expect the admin especially at places that charge a premium will be furious.
15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#5Since a lot of people on HN don't know how indirect costs work, especially for the NIH:
Grant proposals don't cover things that don't directly cover the project. Journal subscriptions, facilities, copy paper, administrative staff, etc. all aren't eligible, and so get rolled into the vague notion of indirect rates.
When an NIH grant is awarded for a particular direct cost amount, the indirect rate is then added on. So for my institution, if I get a $100,000 grant, my institution gets $153,000, because we have a 53% indirect rate. These are periodically renegotiated with the Federal government, and used widely.
Private research companies can and do just tuck this into their costs, but universities aren't allowed to do that.
A 15% rate is, to be blunt, catastrophic. It's "Every University in the U.S. Loses Money on Every Single NIH Grant" levels of bad.
And yes, this is the rate a lot of foundations charge. That's not because it's a reasonable rate - it's because it's a charitable foundation, and we all sort of indulge them because of their missions, and their own need to be efficient. But they're also a minuscule amount of the funding landscape, and often small grants. We tell ourselves its find - they're worthy causes, and loss leaders, etc. But applying that to the NIH will be a massive blow to biomedical research in the United States.
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#6The overhead being charged at a lot of these places was obscene (and variable- it all depended on the specific institution). A fixed rate of 15% seems low, but reasonable. I expect the admin especially at places that charge a premium will be furious.
15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.
When I was an academic, I did all my work in the cloud. I didn't use copy paper, or even really need to be in the office (it had slower networking, and less comfortable chairs). The university had a multi-billion dollar endowment and got billions from the state to run its educational mission. Why should I be raising 50% on top of my money (which was so high, NIH often wanted to give money to people at "cheaper" universities).
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.
When I was an academic, I did all my work in the cloud. I didn't use copy paper, or even really need to be in the office (it had slower networking, and less comfortable chairs). The university had a multi-billion dollar endowment and got billions from the state to run its educational mission. Why should I be raising 50% on top of my money (which was so high, NIH often wanted to give money to people at "cheaper" unive…
A 50% indirect rate both isn't particularly high. The idea that "You're raising" an extra 50% isn't really fair either - the effort into writing a grant is the same regardless of the indirect rate.
There are arguments to be made that university budgets are too high (I don't agree, but they exist). So renegotiate indirect rates. There's a framework for doing this.
An across the board, utterly devoid of context arbitrary cut to 15% isn't a sane policy.
Your institution might have a large endowment. Mine is a rural state school.
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.
When I was an academic, I did all my work in the cloud. I didn't use copy paper, or even really need to be in the office (it had slower networking, and less comfortable chairs). The university had a multi-billion dollar endowment and got billions from the state to run its educational mission. Why should I be raising 50% on top of my money (which was so high, NIH often wanted to give money to people at "cheaper" unive…
It's very unclear to me how you seem to expect medical research to be done in the cloud. Overhead is crucial to create and maintain research infrastructure necessary to advance medicine and science.
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#9The overhead being charged at a lot of these places was obscene (and variable- it all depended on the specific institution). A fixed rate of 15% seems low, but reasonable. I expect the admin especially at places that charge a premium will be furious.
15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.
[deleted]
Re: National Institutes of Health cuts support to universities
#10This is a pointlessly destructive move that will save insignificant amounts of money, while grossly hampering important research in the US. If we're looking for "efficiencies" in government take a look at healthcare, look at what insurance companies are allowed to charge, what hospitals charge insurance in turn. It's a bonanza of cash that's justified in vague free market terms, while the taxpayer is stuck with a bill in the trillions. Far more than education or NIH grants, more than military spending, healthcare in this country simply robs people blind. The focus is often on bankrupted, uninsured people, but the truth is that far more is just skimmed off the top.