Misuse of funds threatens medical research

Every person arguing againt the indirect overhead reduction likely benefits from the bloated overhead rates …. or are lab techs that have been brainwashed to think the higher rates are necessary.

 

Man it is never ending with these awful takes. Do you know that research requires buildings to perform the research in? Probably not. Guess that is "administrative bloat". NIH's entire grant budget is decimal dust compared to the S corp tax credits Trump handed out last term. People (like the post #1 and #2 in this thread) who don't have a clue about financial matters opining on these matters is just so entertaining to me.

 

UF will certainly take a hit.

 

The argument doesn’t even make sense me. In this article UF gets praised as one of the the few able to come in under 60%. So how does anyone work at 15%? I’m not in this space, but seems like a pretty big gap.

As with most things I’m sure if you sort the list from high to low, the top of the list (those with highest costs) probably contains the bad actors. The middle and bottom (UF included) are probably already doing a good efficient job. If you set a goal that litterally *nobody* is already doing, the problem is more likely an unrealistic goal.

 

that’s just a dumb take. Making a statement like that means you can automatically set yourself up to ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

 

Also ps there are already numerous posts in the original thread on this issue about the same one academic (prasad) that is supporting your position. That’s one guy. I can find 100 just as good or better that disagree with him. And it’s obvious from his takes he doesn’t fully understand how idc is spent or he’s being intentionally deceitful.

 

I suspect this cut to 15% is the initial “offer” in a negotiation to bring the IOH rates to something that would be more reasonable. Hopefully, UF has the systems to yield a meaningful IOH rate based upon a reasonable and objective analysis.

 

Based on my knowledge of Uf processes a review could potentially indicate Uf should charge more for idc not less. Maybe if all idc was the same across all granting agencies uf could maybe drop it down but the drop would not be super meaningful it would be more political than anything. I just don’t think people appreciate how much it costs to maintain an old campus for students, staff, and faculty to actually be effective and we certainly can’t cover those costs with just tuition especially in Florida. My guess is any decrease in idc these games generate the state just picks up the bill anyways.

 

Elon thought it was ridiculous how much money colleges were getting for overhead for NIH grants. Who should we listen to? Him or you?

 

I choose not to listen to someone that lied about spending $30 million on condoms in Gaza

 

UF will be fine!

 

Ask the Gates Foundation…

 

I do want to state that I am not saying it should be 15% and that it should be done the way it is. However. Like Prasad says. He is not necessarily for handling something like this in this manner typically. But with the current status it may be necessary to do a scorched earth type of order to get it fixed.

Let it play out and all will be fine. I am confident of that…

 

Yep, a 67 million dollar hit.

 

People on here listen to one guy on the internet and now they are confident they know everything about idc lol.

 

Almost like there are not decades of research and associated costs to look at. There will always be cray cray stuff for the headlines vs 99% of stuff.
When Geraldo’s step kids unearth Musks secret vault, all will be revealed.

 

Or as you have stated. UF does not need 52.5% and we can make it more efficient.

Let’s get this where it needs to be and not waste money!

 

Setting fires, so simple. Some call it efficient.

 

Why does any university have an IOH rate of 50%. That just seems excessive when the average (simple or weighted?) is 28%. That would at a minimum imply waste.

Slso interesting is the concentration of NIH grants in four states. I wonder if these four states have higher IOH rates.

https://www.usnews.com/education/be...s-to-university-research-funding-what-to-know

The new policy, announced Feb. 7, applies a blanket 15% cap on indirect costs – generally called facilities and administrative costs – for new and existing grants. Those costs were previously individually negotiated; the NIH said the average rate was around 28%, with some over 60%.

+

One question is whether the cap could mean more grants for states that typically get a smaller share, says Jagdish Khubchandani, a professor of public health at New Mexico State University. Currently, he says, almost half of NIH research funding goes to institutions in four states: California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina.