31–40 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.
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…
Your comments are quite good and accurate. I would add that funding from private foundations is in many cases only viable because NIH overhead is paying for the supporting infrastructure. Very few biomedical researchers are supported solely by private funding (including the building and lab facilities). These changes also directly impact research hospitals, not just universities. That doesn't mean indirect costs shou…
And yeah, the rates private foundations pay is enabled by the NIH rates, and also that the NIH makes up the bulk of the funding in the first place. There's an argument - that I'm sympathetic to - that they shouldn't get a discount and the rate is the rate, but that's a very different reform than what we're seeing now.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
A lot of the inefficiency comes from being an educational institution. 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.
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.
You know what's a much bigger problem for people doing research? That the budget for a non-modular R01 from the NIH hasn't changed since the Clinton administration.
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…
Your comments are quite good and accurate. I would add that funding from private foundations is in many cases only viable because NIH overhead is paying for the supporting infrastructure. Very few biomedical researchers are supported solely by private funding (including the building and lab facilities). These changes also directly impact research hospitals, not just universities. That doesn't mean indirect costs shou…
The losers of this will be patients of the entire world, the slow down of advancements in medicine and STEM fields of all kinds, and the sucking sound of brains leaving for other countries.
The worst part is that it is immediate and retroactive to ongoing grants. This will immediately cause every single academic and medical research center to have an unsustainable deficit. It will simply cost too much to actually have researchers do the grants. They might return money to NIH and lay off faculty annd grad students. I anm almost certain this will get a TRO from a federal judge while it’s litigated given h…
Last paragraph:
For any new grant issued, and for all existing grants to IHEs retroactive to the date of issuance of this Supplemental Guidance, award recipients are subject to a 15 percent indirect cost rate. This rate will allow grant recipients a reasonable and realistic recovery of indirect costs while helping NIH ensure that grant funds are, to the maximum extent possible, spent on furthering its mission. This policy shall be applied to all current grants for go forward expenses from February 10, 2025 forward as well as for all new grants issued. We will not be applying this cap retroactively back to the initial date of issuance of current grants to IHEs, although we believe we would have the authority to do so under 45 CFR 75.414(c).
The worst part is that it is immediate and retroactive to ongoing grants. This will immediately cause every single academic and medical research center to have an unsustainable deficit. It will simply cost too much to actually have researchers do the grants. They might return money to NIH and lay off faculty annd grad students. I anm almost certain this will get a TRO from a federal judge while it’s litigated given h…
This is not true, you might have misread the guidance- it's retroactive to the date of the decision (7 February) and not retroactive to other existing grants ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-0... ) Last paragraph: For any new grant issued, and for all existing grants to IHEs retroactive to the date of issuance of this Supplemental Guidance, award recipients are subject to a 15 percent indi…
Notice how no one is going after the F&A (indirect) rates for DOD R&D contractors…
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.
When looking at the whole system it clearly becomes woefully inadeqate. To extend the example, the only direct costs of an airplane flight are the crew, the fuel/food, and any airport fees. Could you run the rest of an airline (training, ground staff, scheduling, booking, IT, maintenance) on 15% of the crew+fuel costs? Not even close.
If you look at federal contractors and other companies, the overhead on staff is probably closer to 100-200%, so 50-60% is very defensible.