Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NIH slashes overhead payments for research

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#21

Post by protimewaster »

Dalewyn wrote: post #14
addicted wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, “collateral damage”. What a wonderful phrase that came into prominence to euphemise the killing of hundreds of thousands to millions of innocent Afghans and Iraqis. I believe your use of it here is equally appropriate considering what you’re suggesting. I’m guessing none of you our your loved ones will be affected by that “collateral damage”.

Trump's tariffs if (when) enacted will adversely affect our family business, as will some of his other policies which I won't get into because of confidentiality. I still voted for him. Why? Because his policies are things the people have demanded for a very long time and they are things we need to do sooner or later for the better future of our country. Even Musk admitted this will be painful in the short and possib…

I think it's optimistic to think they'll be better off in the long term, personally. Other countries are ready to jump in as soon as the US appears deficient at something, even if it is a temporary deficiency. If the US ends up temporarily behind in AI research due to this, for example, it's unlikely they catch back up IMO. If you get behind, everybody is just going to start looking at whoever is ahead and the rich will get richer.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#22

Post by refurb »

zmgsabst wrote: post #16

This is 0.25% of the national deficit by cutting indirect expenses from 30%+ to 15%. When the country is $1,830,000,000,000 further in debt every year, universities will simply have to figure it out. I suggest cutting their bloated administrations, to free up tuition and endowment funds for their actual purpose.

> This is 0.25% of the national deficit by cutting indirect expenses from 30%+ to 15%.

The federal budget (save DOD and entitlements) is stuff like this.

Saying “oh well, it’s just 0.25%” is the reason why nobody can tackle the deficit.

Do this 100x and you’ve suddenly reduced the deficit by 25%.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#23

Post by unsnap_biceps »

zmgsabst wrote: post #18
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key issue is we're not getting audits, we're only getting indiscriminate cuts . I understand the concerns around using funds effectively, and I agree there's a lot of waste out there, but some of that is just required in the research space to learn. If we knew what to fund to do something, it's no longer research, it's engineering. Overhaul the grant system to ensure that there's additional scrutiny in getting fu…

They’re not “burning it all down”, they’re cutting indirect expenses from 30%+ to 15% — and administrators who were grifting are whining because their slush funds got cut.

You are correct. I was more talking about the overall cost cutting "program" which is much closer to the burn it all down, but that isn't the case with this article and I apologize for incorrectly commenting overly broadly out of context.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#24

Post by divbzero »

> Many who advocate for cutting NIH’s indirect cost rate have long argued that universities are willing to accept lower rates from philanthropic foundations. Today’s NIH notice, for example, notes the Gates Foundation limits indirect costs to 10%, while the Packard Foundation sets the ceiling at 15%. But such reasoning is based on “perverse logic,” Corey says, because foundations use their funds to increase the productivity of research infrastructure already paid for by the federal government. And universities say they are often willing to accept foundation grants that carry low overhead rates because those grants amount to a relatively small fraction of their funding.

This detail is worth highlighting. NIH has traditionally borne the bulk of indirect costs, allowing non-profits to issue grants with low indirect costs. Slashing NIH’s indirect costs will force research institutions to seek funds elsewhere or become financially unviable.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#25

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

voxl wrote: post #20
Dalewyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's tariffs if (when) enacted will adversely affect our family business, as will some of his other policies which I won't get into because of confidentiality. I still voted for him. Why? Because his policies are things the people have demanded for a very long time and they are things we need to do sooner or later for the better future of our country. Even Musk admitted this will be painful in the short and possib…

I demanded he be in jail but somehow you voted for a convicted felon over a prosecutor.

Dodged a bullet, I say

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#26

Post by transcriptase »

One of the main issues with overhead on grants is that it has nothing to do with overhead on the research itself. It’s instead a tax that a university applies to money that researchers bring in, that they use as general revenue to fund, for lack of a better term, bullshit including hiring more admin instead of professors.

A $8M grant doesn’t cost a university any more than a $1M grant for university admin in terms of “indirect costs”. The fact that they think they’re entitled to several million of it to waste on things that shouldn’t be coming from taxpayer funded NIH grant money is obscene.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#27

Post by transcriptase »

divbzero wrote: post #24

> Many who advocate for cutting NIH’s indirect cost rate have long argued that universities are willing to accept lower rates from philanthropic foundations. Today’s NIH notice, for example, notes the Gates Foundation limits indirect costs to 10%, while the Packard Foundation sets the ceiling at 15%. But such reasoning is based on “perverse logic,” Corey says, because foundations use their funds to increase the produ…

They could simply stop hiring more admin and building offices for them to work in at a rate that far exceeds student population growth or hiring of professors.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#28

Post by transcriptase »

voxl wrote: post #20
Dalewyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's tariffs if (when) enacted will adversely affect our family business, as will some of his other policies which I won't get into because of confidentiality. I still voted for him. Why? Because his policies are things the people have demanded for a very long time and they are things we need to do sooner or later for the better future of our country. Even Musk admitted this will be painful in the short and possib…

I demanded he be in jail but somehow you voted for a convicted felon over a prosecutor.

What was it like voting for Kamala in the primary?

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#29

Post by scirob »

no fan if this gov but I always found the university cut if grants designated for specific things too high. In many US universtiies the professors don't get a sallary if they don't bring in grants. And with such a big overhead universiteis sure want it this way. In some Euro universiteis like ETH Zurich or Max Planck instituties the prof's get a pretty good baseline funding from the institutional funding (given top down from taxes) and inside these kind of instutitions the professors have so much more freedom to think about what experiment is the most informative. Also a side note while bot of the named universities are top 10 world wide for research output they don't spend millions on landscaping or sports facilities most things are kinda old but functional.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#30

Post by transcriptase »

protimewaster wrote: post #21
Dalewyn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's tariffs if (when) enacted will adversely affect our family business, as will some of his other policies which I won't get into because of confidentiality. I still voted for him. Why? Because his policies are things the people have demanded for a very long time and they are things we need to do sooner or later for the better future of our country. Even Musk admitted this will be painful in the short and possib…

I think it's optimistic to think they'll be better off in the long term, personally. Other countries are ready to jump in as soon as the US appears deficient at something, even if it is a temporary deficiency. If the US ends up temporarily behind in AI research due to this, for example, it's unlikely they catch back up IMO. If you get behind, everybody is just going to start looking at whoever is ahead and the rich w…

How long have European nations existed versus the USA?
Post reply on HN