NIH slashes overhead payments for research • Hacker News Board

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#61

Post by jeffbee » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 5:48 PM UTC

transcriptase wrote: post #60

jeffbee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to have any experience with the subject. The "overhead" in question is, for example, the person who keeps clean glassware in inventory for chemistry, or the veterinarian for animal subjects, or the ethics board.

And in the case of massive projects where service providers do the wet work, your lab primarily deals with data analysis, or you don’t even do your research with university space/equipment, they still get 30-60% just because. This isn’t some conspiracy theory. Look at how much grant money a given university brings in annually and ask yourself if 30-60% of that number is being spent on overhead related to research. It…

It is. The larger the institution, the higher the overhead ratio, perversely because they are more efficient scientific organizations. UCSF can get a grant to study something and 2/3rds of the costs are overhead because absolutely everything at that institution is shared.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#62

Post by secabeen » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 7:09 PM UTC

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.

Sadly, many of those arbitrary policies are set by ... The Federal Government! As an example, NIH just added a huge new cybersecurity requirement for a bunch of their datasets.

Space, utilities and IT can be significant costs. There are also the standard costs of personnel for the people working under these grants (HR, Accounting, Purchasing, etc.) Add onto that the significant compliance requirements.

When the government hires a consultant, they usually pay 2-3x the salary of the consultant in per-hour costs. This rule limits them to 1.15x the salary of the employee.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#63

Post by secabeen » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 7:11 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

Sure it does. An 8M grant is going to have roughly 8X more researchers working under it than a 1M grant. Each of those researchers needs space, parking, IT support, HR supports, etc. There are some economies of scale, but the idea that you could increase the staffing of a business by 8x and not have to hire more HR and accounting people is silly.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#64

Post by secabeen » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 7:13 PM UTC

transcriptase wrote: post #60

jeffbee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to have any experience with the subject. The "overhead" in question is, for example, the person who keeps clean glassware in inventory for chemistry, or the veterinarian for animal subjects, or the ethics board.

And in the case of massive projects where service providers do the wet work, your lab primarily deals with data analysis, or you don’t even do your research with university space/equipment, they still get 30-60% just because. This isn’t some conspiracy theory. Look at how much grant money a given university brings in annually and ask yourself if 30-60% of that number is being spent on overhead related to research. It…

> Look at how much grant money a given university brings in annually and ask yourself if 30-60% of that number is being spent on overhead related to research. It’s not.

Look at a consulting company or law firm. Most will charge you 2-3x the salary cost of the consultant or lawyer you're getting. This limits universities to 1.15x.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#65

Post by syndicatedjelly » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 9:31 PM UTC

secabeen wrote: post #63

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…

> 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. Sure it does. An 8M grant is going to have roughly 8X more researchers working under it than a 1M grant. Each of those researchers needs space,…

This is such a wasteful way to think...do economies of scale not apply to universities at all? They're allowed to just bill as if there is 0 savings to be found in bulk construction and administration?

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#66

Post by syndicatedjelly » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 9:59 PM UTC

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-0...

The original grant notice is a good thing to read. They properly justify the cuts, and I think it's something that a lot of people would agree with - why is up to 70% of grant money being sent to "administration and overhead" at giant private universities? My small LLC is currently applying for an SBIR grant, and we were capped to 40% unless we provided a big justification - which we can't, because we're too small to justify anything like that. Meanwhile, big organizations and universities can throw their weight around and bully the government into handing them more money to do who-knows-what with. Maybe build a nice shiny new sports center with.

This is a good reform - even though it will cost my LLC about $75k in indirect costs that we might have been able to bill (40% -> 15%). I'm more confident in my ability to reduce our indirect costs and compete on a level-playing field with everyone else.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#67

Post by syndicatedjelly » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 10:02 PM UTC

jordanpg wrote: post #4

The reputational damage to US scientific prestige is incalculable. And all for amounts that are tiny slivers of the federal budget for research that benefits potentially everyone.

Consider reading the original notice and decide if you should revise your opinion.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-0...

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#68

Post by Dalewyn » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 10:10 PM UTC

jordanpg wrote: post #58

zmgsabst wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even in this narrow context, the cuts are indiscriminate in their domain. Moreover, they are rolled out aggressively, carelessly, and abruptly -- a lot of "masculine energy." Science takes years and requires long-term planning. This move just pulls the carpet out; there absolutely is no need for this degree of urgency other than political gain. These organizations can and will adapt. But as I said in my OP, the real,…

>no need for this degree of urgency

Midterms are coming up in less than 2 years, and the next general in less than 4. Time is of the essence to get shit done so the people can decide if they want more or a change in course.

>lasting damage is in prestige.

Pride is a deadly sin for a reason, screw pride. We make America great again by striving for greatness, not puffing ourselves up with pride.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#69

Post by robwwilliams » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 10:34 PM UTC

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…

Not a compelling argument. Due to federal and state policies there is a great deal bureaucracy involved in running a research project. Too much, but mandated largely by the federal government. Many institutions have to supplement even NIH grants with institutional funds. I do.

NIH does not pay full salary support for many junior and senior scientists even if they work 100% on NIH projects. That is indirect support by the institution to NIH.

15% will kill academic medical research — the fountain head of a much or most progress we have made in preventing and treating a wide range of diseases.

Re: NIH slashes overhead payments for research

#70

Post by pfisherman » Sat, Feb 08, 2025, 10:40 PM UTC

arcmechanica wrote: post #2

well, pharma companies are screwed. They aren't going to do their own research, so no new drugs

> They aren’t going to do basic research.

Fixed that for you. Pharma companies do lots research. But the goal of that research is very narrow - to bring new therapies to the market. The Academy has very different goals - train next generation of researchers and make discoveries. IMO, expecting a pharma company to do the work of an academic institution is a recipe for failure. But that is just an opinion.