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

31–40 of 78 posts

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#31

Post by jltsiren »

refurb wrote: post #9
ralph84 wrote: post #7

[flagged]

Precisely. I remember my university taking 35% off the top of all grants for a lab that was 30 years old (hadnt been updated), and a sufficient but hardly cutting edge instrument room. The university was getting far more money than if the PI rented lab space at an incubator.

That's a naive understanding of grant overheads. Only a portion of the overhead is used for facilities and services directly used by the PI and their lab. The rest are better understood as federal subsidies to research universities. The funds are allocated according to the ability of the university to win competitive grants, rather than via a political process or a rigidly specified funding model.

At my university, 44% of the overheads go to the general fund, 34% are used to support research in various ways (including startup funds for new faculty), and 22% goes to the administration. For grants with the normal 56% overhead rate, that means 16%, 12%, and 8% of the total.

Grant overheads are good for the university, because they mostly come with no strings attached. The university is free to spend them as it sees fit, rather than according to what some big important outsider says.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#33

Post by the_snooze »

transcriptase wrote: post #27
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.

Research overhead doesn't pay for that stuff. It pays for research-relevant infrastructure and staff. If a PI buys equipment, it's a waste to spend their own very expensive time to ensure purchase-tracking compliance. So you hire an inventory person. But it doesn't make sense to have one inventory person per research group. So you hire one to serve multiple projects and ensure their continued employment by averaging out the costs across those funding lines. That's the overhead cost.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#34

Post by transcriptase »

the_snooze wrote: post #33
transcriptase wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Research overhead doesn't pay for that stuff. It pays for research-relevant infrastructure and staff. If a PI buys equipment, it's a waste to spend their own very expensive time to ensure purchase-tracking compliance. So you hire an inventory person. But it doesn't make sense to have one inventory person per research group. So you hire one to serve multiple projects and ensure their continued employment by averaging…

“Purchase compliance” with what? Arbitrary policies set by… university admin?

Full disclosure I’ve dealt with this all first hand. The vast majority of universities contribute next to nothing to research programs except the space, utilities, and IT. And those costs do not need to be a % of incoming grant money.

And the vast majority do just take that cut and use it as slush fund general revenue.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#35

Post by Mortiffer »

transcriptase wrote: post #26

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…

I have not found a single prof that thinks the trend have having higher and higher % of university staff be administrators is a good thing.

I wonder if it is possible for them to connect funding to a maximum allowed ratio of admin to prof / lectures

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#36

Post by the_snooze »

transcriptase wrote: post #34
the_snooze wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research overhead doesn't pay for that stuff. It pays for research-relevant infrastructure and staff. If a PI buys equipment, it's a waste to spend their own very expensive time to ensure purchase-tracking compliance. So you hire an inventory person. But it doesn't make sense to have one inventory person per research group. So you hire one to serve multiple projects and ensure their continued employment by averaging…

“Purchase compliance” with what? Arbitrary policies set by… university admin? Full disclosure I’ve dealt with this all first hand. The vast majority of universities contribute next to nothing to research programs except the space, utilities, and IT. And those costs do not need to be a % of incoming grant money. And the vast majority do just take that cut and use it as slush fund general revenue.

Funding sources themselves, especially with capital expenditures for purchases $10K or higher. They want to make sure PIs are spending money on actual program equipment that's being used, and not just turning around and selling it on Ebay to line their pockets.

I've dealt with this first hand because I'm a PI myself. I hate having to waste my valuable time dealing with the inventory person every couple months, but we do it because our funding sources require that kind of accountability.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#37

Post by elontrump »

transcriptase wrote: post #26

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…

[flagged]

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#39

Post by transcriptase »

the_snooze wrote: post #36
transcriptase wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Purchase compliance” with what? Arbitrary policies set by… university admin? Full disclosure I’ve dealt with this all first hand. The vast majority of universities contribute next to nothing to research programs except the space, utilities, and IT. And those costs do not need to be a % of incoming grant money. And the vast majority do just take that cut and use it as slush fund general revenue.

Funding sources themselves, especially with capital expenditures for purchases $10K or higher. They want to make sure PIs are spending money on actual program equipment that's being used, and not just turning around and selling it on Ebay to line their pockets. I've dealt with this first hand because I'm a PI myself. I hate having to waste my valuable time dealing with the inventory person every couple months, but we…

That’s interesting. In Canada the issue is that funding sources don’t care if you’re somewhat irresponsible with capital expenditures (though not to the point of personal enrichment), but are loathe to give you any money for personnel.
Post reply on HN