21–30 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that research universities should go bankrupt? What do you think should replace their function in society?
People doing research funded by grants, rather than having 50% of their grant leeched off by a bloated administrative complex coasting on pedigree.
The 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.
I think this very much depends on the field. The researchers I know are describing it as devastating because the type of research they do depends on things like animal facilities which aren’t cheap. Fortunately, we don’t need any biomedical research since drinking raw milk will solve everything.
It's a complicated situation and I can't speak for every scientist, but I certainly saw tons of waste (closet clusters that were "free" for the investigator because the university paid for it... through overhead... adminned by grad students since they were "paid for" by training grants.) Similar complaints about wet labs. After working in that environment and moving to industry, I've seen what infrastructure built around efficiency can achieve.
"From what I hear from multiple people in the space, the latest NIH indirect costs for medical research grants will basically mean the end most academic medical centers"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that research universities should go bankrupt? What do you think should replace their function in society?
People doing research funded by grants, rather than having 50% of their grant leeched off by a bloated administrative complex coasting on pedigree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this very much depends on the field. The researchers I know are describing it as devastating because the type of research they do depends on things like animal facilities which aren’t cheap. Fortunately, we don’t need any biomedical research since drinking raw milk will solve everything.
Often, when you look at those animal facilities run by universities through indirect costs, they are often not efficient. And NIH provides granting mechanisms that last for several years and allow for capital building. Ideally (although I wouldn't expect this to happen with the current admin) NIH could give more money to investigators. But I would argue that in many cases, things like animal facilities should be cent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this very much depends on the field. The researchers I know are describing it as devastating because the type of research they do depends on things like animal facilities which aren’t cheap. Fortunately, we don’t need any biomedical research since drinking raw milk will solve everything.
Often, when you look at those animal facilities run by universities through indirect costs, they are often not efficient. And NIH provides granting mechanisms that last for several years and allow for capital building. Ideally (although I wouldn't expect this to happen with the current admin) NIH could give more money to investigators. But I would argue that in many cases, things like animal facilities should be cent…
Mentoring grad students is inefficient. Giving research opportunities to undergrads is even more inefficient. Universities would be far more efficient if they would only hire researchers with PhDs and professional support staff. But then they wouldn't be educational institutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
15% is wildly far from reasonable. More than that, it's an entirely made up number.
It is not made up, it is what private foundations allow for grantees overhead.
Some private foundations do charge less, but they’re usually not providing the bulk of the funding for a given lab. There are generations of researchers and American industries based on the model where NIH/NSF provide a stable foundation for research, and while that can change it’s incredibly disruptive to try to break existing agreements.
To put it in HN terms, do you know anyone who take lower paying non-profit work because they’re married to someone with a tech job which means they never worry about their mortgage or health insurance? This is like that spouse’s employer saying they’re getting a 30% pay cut.
Since 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…
These changes also directly impact research hospitals, not just universities.
That doesn't mean indirect costs shouldn't be reformed. This is just simply the most disruptive possible way to do it.
I anm almost certain this will get a TRO from a federal judge while it’s litigated given how insane this is.